Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:14, 11 January 2012

• WT:MOS

Template:MOS/R

For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides , see this page.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Section titles and definite and indefinite articles

One person interpreted the sentence "The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well (for example, headings are in sentence case, not title case)." in the "Section titles" section as saying that section titles within articles are forbidden from starting with "a", "an", or "the". It's completely standard in print to have section and chapter titles in books and papers that begin with these words. I assume that this is really just an oversight in the MOS phrasing, right? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a revision in which I removed “The” from “The priority method” in a subheading of the article “Computability theory”.

–Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good example where the "The" makes a clear difference in the sound of the title. There's a fine line: most section titles should not have "a", "an", or "the", but there are some situations like this where the words are necessary to give the header the right tone. Another example is in the FA Helium. The section title "The helium atom" would sound very strange without the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, I think those were places where removing "the" was a good move. And I agree that sometimes "The" is OK. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I agree WP:MOS could use a tweak on this. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that care should be taken when articles or redirects are wikilinked to the section when its title is changed. See my warning/request about this particular change, followed by this and this correction to two redirected articles. - DVdm (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have temporarily suspended my systematic checking and editing of section headings in articles listed in "Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded", and I await a timely and well-organized resolution of this impasse. Perhaps there is a time limit beyond which I would be encouraged to resume according to the current version of the guidelines. Here is a permanent link to the current version of the guidelines.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC) and 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, can someone explain to me what's going with this linguistically? It seems to have something to do with the fact these are singular countable nouns. So "Derivative" sounds bad as a section title, but "The derivative" or "Derivatives" are better. Same with "Helium atom", "Priority method", and all the other examples I can think of at the moment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

All countable common nouns have a general usage that refers to individual items named by that noun, but also have a second usage that names the class of all those objects collectively. The collective sense acquires some properties of a weak proper noun. As an example: "a cat entered the room" refers to an individual feline named by the common noun "cat", but "the cat is a mammal" refers collectively to the class of objects named by the noun "cat". The class usage, as a pseudo-weak proper noun, usually requires a definite article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems to me that nobody would object to clarifying that the article thing doesn't apply to section titles, right? I'm going to do that; if I'm wrong, please revert me. ― A. di M.​  12:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Now what is it again that distinguishes section and article titles in this respect? (I've come here because MoS has just been changed with major implications). Tony (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I do agree with CBM that section titles like that sound bad, and for some reason I don't get the same sensation in article titles. ― A. di M.​  11:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong feeling one way or another ... but I did submit an article for Peer Review recently, and an FAC expert (who has many FAs to their credit) told me to remove the leading "The ..." from my section titles (I think there were two out of about a dozen sections). So, apparently the FAC folks are enforcing a general rule against leading The/A/An. --Noleander (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• If it's causing WP:FAC and WP:GAN to make nitpicky demands that result in poor writing, then, yes, let's do something about that here, but I echo Tony1's suggestion that changing something here can have unintended consequences. In particular, we need to ensure that we are not giving blanket license to put A/An/The all over the place, only when it is actually necessary for clarity. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The practice of omitting the initial the or a was new to me when I first came to WP's MoS. But it seemed intuitive and much-practised by writers when I thought about it (although it's not a universal practice). I think on balance it's a good rule for WP's article and section titles: the deictic meaning is usually not at issue in such "short texts" (as Halliday calls them when he explains their particular grammar); and titles are best short, aren't they? Tony (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
    • "Dirty language", "The dirty language" and "Dirty languages" all suggest different things to my (perhaps wayward) mind, so I think it depends a bit on how likely the reader is to immediately get the meaning when we leave the definite article off. Usually, they'll get it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Another example: it's easy to guess that Myth of the Flat Earth is about the myth, not a particular myth, because it's a title; as a heading, I couldn't be sure until I read the section, so I'd be inclined to allow the initial the in a heading to disambiguate (but not in the title). I don't have a preference on whether to mention this specifically at WP:MOS; a short MOS is a happy MOS. I'll remember that we talked about it and I'll save the link. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

      I don't understand the distinction here. So far we treat headings and titles pretty much equivalently. How is there a difference and why does the difference relation more to "the" than to other aspects? Rather than invent a different, can't we just say that "the" is usually not necessary, so not used? Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

      It might have to do with the fact that articles are supposed to be able to stand alone and hence to deal with “whole” topics, whereas sections can (or can not) be more “specialized”, if that makes sense. Anyway, once an irregularity is acknowledged to exist in a natural language, coming up with rationalizations as to why it exists is not necessarily the best use of one's time, or even necessarily a meaningful question. Why are reflexive pronouns in English formed with the genitive when 1st or 2nd person (myself not meself) and with the accusative when 3rd person (himself not hisself)? Why does that question matter and what does it even mean, anyway? ― A. di M.​  10:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

      Yes. Article titles are encyclopedia entries; section titles can be many things, including examples, and occasionally need an extra word or two to disambiguate among the possible meanings. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

    • Re Tony: "titles are best short" is good advice in general, but if someone changed a section title "The horse as a metaphor" to "Horse as a metaphor", I hope your ear would notice the second is violently wrong. I think we generally avoid "The" in article titles because this is standard in encyclopedias and dictionaries. On the other hand I doubt the omitting "the" when doing so sounds awful is common anywhere. If editors were to rewrite the titles to make them sound better (e.g. by making them plural, as in "Horses as metaphors") that would be different. Of course, others might claim that the guidelines forbid plural section titles as well... — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Headings#Using "The" in section headers (permanent link here)

and MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data: Appendix F: Initial Definite and Indefinite Articles (Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the relevance of the latter link... AFAICT it says that articles should be disregarded for sorting purposes (and my iPod does that, e.g. the song "The Battle of Evermore" is sorted under B), but I can see no situation where you'd want to sort sections alphabetically. Am I missing something? ― A. di M.​  21:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It says "Initial articles may also simply be deleted in the formulation of the heading."

—Wavelength (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

But that's about cataloging, not about writing the title in the first place. The previous MOS discussion doesn't really show a lot of support for the rule, and in particular the justifications given there seem to be somewhat circular, justifying the rule in terms of itself rather than giving any argument why it's desirable. Using "the" appropriately is well established in scholarly literature, and even part 1 of the CMOS is titled "The Publishing Process" rather than "Publishing Process". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I am still awaiting a resolution. Please do not abandon this discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you? This doesn't look like “awaiting” to me. (Note how Electromagnetism and the speed of light would follow the letter of the guideline, which shows how silly it is to follow the letter of a guideline as an end in itself.) ― A. di M.​  23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Would it help if I copy some more examples of articles in section titles in professional publications (in addition to the example of the Chicago Manual of Style)? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That depends on how the editors of the Manual of Style evaluate those examples, and on whether they all agree on what the Manual should say.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've since seen two more section titles which are very jarring without an article: Lulu (Lou Reed and Metallica album)#Band's response to criticism (it almost sounds like it's the response of someone whose last name is Band) and Particle physics#Future (OK, “The future” might not be the best title possible either, but still). ― A. di M.​  12:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a common theme that sometimes the article can be omitted, but the whole section title needs to be rewritten, either by adding other words or pluralizing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical errors page

Is the page Misplaced Pages:Common grammatical errors of any use? Some of the errors listed (e.g. regarding contractions) do not seem to be relevant in the Misplaced Pages namespace; other so-called errors reflect only American typographical usage (and are not grammatical errors at all). Most of it is probably redundant. If any of the advice is supposed to be followed, wouldn't it be better here at WP:MOS? I suppose this could be called a merge proposal. --Boson (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The first bullet point, "Periods and commas ..." is inconsistent with WP:LQ, and I don't think any English "places all following punctuation after the quotation marks." Art LaPella (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear what sort of thing it's supposed to be. Is it a guideline-in-progress, an essay, or something else? Whatever it is, I don't see the point of it — recommend MfD. --Trovatore (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the solution to that would be to change WP:LQ to follow ENGVAR. In the meantime I just corrected the description of British-style punctuation. There's no sense giving people misinformation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant to respond to Art here? --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with those above who say it should be junked. It's just a hodgepodge of spelling errors and punctuation tips—a rambling echo of of the MoS. There's no point in treating it as a merge; there's nothing in that page worth integrating into the MoS. Zueignung (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I did the MfD thing. Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. As much as I love almost anything that junks WP:LQ, that's probably for the best. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Singular They use because the subject prefers to use gender neutral pronouns

There's an editing conflict (See ) going on in the Jiz Lee article where people have been using the singular they or their to describe Lee out of respect for her because that's how she describes herself. Is this proper? I've read the discussions in the archives and none really touch the way it is being attempted to use currently. I've been taking the position that the subject does not control the conventions of English on Misplaced Pages (except for national differences of language of course). I believe that the way the "singular they" has been used is improper since it is referring to a specific person, Lee. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Register#Gender-neutral language, we don't have a consensus on that issue. We also have a Misplaced Pages:Use modern language essay which forbids the singular they, but it undermines itself by forbidding any alternative it mentions without recommending an alternative (perhaps we're expected to feel guilty until when and if we find a phrase everyone likes). Art LaPella (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought it recommended rewriting to avoid the construction, which seems to be the way this discussion is going, but that's worth looking into. I'm the principal author of that essay, and did not think of this case at the time. For the record, I think I'd side with going with the preference of the subject, if it can be sourced, including use of "they"/"them", for their post-gender-reidentification life, but otherwise going with basic logic (i.e., use "she", or if sourcedly preferred, "they", when referring to a M-to-F transsexual, post-gender-reidentification, but use "he" when referring to that person's childhood). There's nothing more jarring than seeing something like "Jane Smyth (born Oscar Smith)... blah blah blah ... When Oscar was in born in London, Ontario in 1978, her parents..." It's just infuriatingly "p-c" for no benefit, at the cost of making Misplaced Pages look like it's written by a bunch of illiterates who can't formulate even the most basic logical thoughts. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 07:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it recommends rewriting. My point is that without specifying an alternative, it sounds like: Don't call me Art. Don't call me Art LaPella. Also avoid Arthur, Artie, Arthur LaPella, Arthur Michael LaPella, ALP, Arthur M. LaPella, Mr. Arthur LaPella, and Hey You. Rewrite to avoid the construction. Art LaPella (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha! AMLP wasn't forbidden. >;-) I get your, point though. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In that particular article it might be possible, with a little thought, to side-step the issue by avoiding the terms he/she/them/they altogether. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Art, the register you point to mentions that the singular they is often used in informal speech when the person is indeterminate though. I would accept that rationale. However, the way it's used in the disputed article is to refer to a specific person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your position is sound: a subject can decide whether we should use "he" or "she", and we respect that, but there are no other choices the subject can make in the type of English that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur with CBM.Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this? ― A. di M.​  19:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfect? It seems like a good strategy for the wording, but is the intent to hide all clue about Lee's birth gender or whatever you call it? Is this something that reliable sources do? Maybe a brief mention of the direction from which Lee came to be gender neutral could be included somewhere? Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there being not even a picture of Lee makes it hard to decide whether Lee is the kind of person most people would consider a guy, or the kind of person most people would consider a girl; OTOH, the fact that she/her is mentioned among pronouns Lee doesn't like but he/him isn't suggests the latter (though maybe not strongly enough?), and there are the titles of the awards Lee was nominated for and of the external links. (BTW, this approach would be much less graceful for a person with a polysyllabic last name.) ― A. di M.​  21:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Gender-neutral pronouns: can the female precede the male?

Adding another question to the gender-neutral discussion: substituting "he or she"/"him or her" is an accepted technique to avoid using "they" while remaining gender-neutral, but WP's writing conventions do not make it clear whether the female pronoun may come first. I have had an ongoing dispute on the subject with an editor who refuses to explain their actions or engage with me, and at the urging of a different editor I am bringing the subject up here with the hope of consensus or at least a good discussion. I've had a productive conversation with another user in the talk page on the gender-neutral language project entry; please refer to its contents for an in-depth explanation of my motives and justifications for bringing up this question. A short version for those who don't want to read: demanding that the male pronoun always come first in such pairs does little to mitigate the problem of gender-biased language; Misplaced Pages should allow writers to use male and female pronouns interchangeably in this specific setting. I am not looking for a fight or political debate, simply informed opinions that can produce some sort of agreement. Thank you and I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. Helsabott (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything that's not forbidden is permitted. We don't prescribe either "he or she" or "she or he". It's up to the writer. A lot of things are. We don't, can't, and won't prescribe down to that level.

That being said, "he or she" is common and sounds right and "she or he" is somewhat idiosyncratic. I don't know why this is so, but some things are like that... "Great green dragon" is OK but "Green great dragon" isn't. If the editor is objecting to "she or he" this is probably his (or her!) point. It's not something that can be solved by a style guide.

Generally speaking, it's not worth worrying about. If I write "the great ship foundered" and another editor changes it to "the huge ship foundered", that's annoying and just pointless roiling of the material to no gain, but I generally let it go. If I don't want to let it go, then I revert it and the other editor lets it go. If neither of you is willing to let it go, then I dunno what to tell you. Just keep discussing it until one of you is convinced or gives up, I guess.

Generally speaking, in my opinion editors should leave stuff like this as they found it. However, I can also see the case for changing to "he or she" here, because that's the more common term and the other sounds just a bit off. So the person preferring "she or he" should concede on this basis, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The question brings to my mind statements such as "A registered nurse does what she or he can." It also brings to my mind the plus-minus sign and the minus-plus sign, but I do not mean to associate positivity and negativity with gender.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"She or he" sounds awkward in English, kind of like "services and products." "She or he" makes it sound like someone is trying way too hard to push an issue. I would not support punishing people who wrote "she or he," but I would change it to "he or she" if I saw it in and article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see very limited cases where the topic is more personified by a female role (eg, if the topic was about bras, for example) where "she or he" would be more appropriate, but it seems always better to rework language to avoid the awkwardness. But if the topic is gender-neutral, forcing "he or she" to "she or he" is definitely POV'ing. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Has that issue ever come up in an actual article, or are you guys just brainwank^W‌speculating? ― A. di M.​  19:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a fair question, A di M (a rude one also). For what it's worth, I say that "she or he" is as thoroughly acceptable as "he or she" is in almost all contexts, though by generalisation of what Wavelength and Masem point out, one form or the other is sometimes at least arguably preferable.

People have idiosyncratic responses to a less common ordering; but given the assumption of sexual equality which* "X or Y" is intended to reflect, they had better just get over it, just as they earlier had to get over the use of "he or she" itself. Not a point for MOS to address, I say.

  * Note my "which" unaccompanied by a comma but intended non-restrictively, deployed opportunistically for political purposes.

Noetica 21:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's not part of normal English usage, we shouldn't do it. But it is, so we can. See books n-grams, which shows that "she or he" is only about a factor of 10 behind "he or she", starting from zero in about 1970. Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

AdM's question is indeed fair and relevant. I have seen this issue come up in an article. I think it was Gender.

As for "he or she" vs "she or he," Misplaced Pages is not the place for revisionism. Maybe after twenty or thirty years (of linguistic activism outside of Misplaced Pages) the two orders will be seen as interchangeable, but right now they're not. We say "X and Y" but not "Y and X." Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway... If I really had to, I'd use he or she, but I couldn't be bothered to edit an article just to change she or he to he or she. Anyway, that construction strongly smells like legalese to me (and old-fashioned legalese at that–I've seen the singular they in a lease agreement, and IIRC the EU style guide recommends it), so I'd almost always find a way to avoid it altogether–though I guess Gender indeed may be one of the rare places where avoiding it would be impossible or much worse (I've not read that article yet). ― A. di M.​  12:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor came in and made a big fuss about how always saying "male and female" was sexist and that we should switch back and forth with "female and male." The discussion is still on the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd lean toward the singular they myself, because it avoids the baggage associated with gender roles and identity entirely. Failing that, if gender is not a big factor in the topic at hand, then there's no problem—let the editor do what they want, subject to good taste. (Edit warring is not in good taste.) That something is uncommon (but otherwise correct, inoffensive and clear) is not a sufficient reason for it to be proscribed. If there are traditional/expected/existing gender associations inherent to the topic, and the phrasing inverts that expectation, it's still not necessarily wrong—it's instead an item for discussion on the talk page. Is the editor trying to make an argument about the topic (if so, they need to cite appropriate sources), or are they just choosing one construction when the other would do equally well (and hence, there's no reason to change it). In any event, to make a rule that "he" shall precede "she" only serves to give ammunition to those who would say we were enforcing archaic stereotypes—leave it unsaid and fight those battles one at a time, and at least you can have plausible deniability. Make the rule that entrenches the status quo, and it becomes a lightning rod for (justifiable) criticism. TheFeds 18:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. The singular they is a separate issue here. We've never really come up with a clear decision (probably because singular they holds middling status in the language itself). My own take is that it's too informal for an encyclopedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought MOS said not to use "he or she" constructions if they can be avoided, anyway. Did this change? A lot of wording at WP:MODLANG depends on this, giving example of how to re-write (or it did last I looked at it). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 07:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It was shortly after the start of the century that the Oxford style officially accepted the singular they. I don't know what you mean by "middling status", DF, but many things have that irrespective of their relative formality or informality (two different issues). Singular they has been used by Jane Austen and Shakespeare, among hundreds of prominent literary figures. This is starting to look like a war against splitting the infinitive. Tony (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC workaround for MOS:SCROLL in big articles.

The International Space Station#References now has a scrolling section that has a crude but workable "no java" option, to address MOS:SCROLL. The transclusion article has a note in it's history as suggested by ZxxZxxZ on my talkpage, to address concerns over copyright indicated by Sparthorse. Z also helped improve my original code. Yes it is crude, but lacking the skills to program wiki to detect Java support in browsers, I thought this was one of many temporary fixes. The ISS article is rather long, and the Ref's section is 'slightly boring' to read on it's own, but I didn't want to make the article difficult to read for Java free users. So I'm wondering was today's effort a good idea ? More importantly I propose mentioning it as a workaround for mos:scroll, to help editors overcome these twin problems. Penyulap _talk 14:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You can have scrolling boxes without Java, with style sheets alone, but IIRC the MOS discourages that for some reason. ― A. di M.​  15:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Scrolling references section Java workaround. The links include links to guideline pages and a way to add personal CSS. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  16:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Mos needs better wording, ideally with links to those resources. I'll have a think about some new wording. Penyulap _talk 01:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Step one would be identifying the platforms where scrolling doesn't work, and what occurs there. Does anyone know what they are ? I have only online tools to show different resolutions and I think down to ipad and it seems cool. If we can't identify the "for some reason" then I'd suggest it's not significant. Or if it can be found, some link to the description would be helpful. Penyulap _talk 01:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1) I believe there are WP:ACCESS issues with scroll boxes. 2) Scroll boxes don't print properly. 3) It is off-putting for a reader who doesn't want or can't handle a scroll box to have to reload such a page, which is invariably large. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, advantages of using scrolling boxes for references:

• Some people think they look nicer.
• People who want to ignore the references can more easily scroll past them.

Disadvantages:

• Some people think they look ugly. Very ugly.
• It makes it more difficult to actually read the references, as they must be read within a tiny box in the page.
• Some browsers may have issues correctly scrolling to the reference when a reference link is clicked.
• Some browsers may have issues correctly scrolling when using the browser's in-page search feature to search for text contained in the references.
• Scrolling boxes within the page can be difficult to scroll with mobile browsers. For example, some require use of two fingers rather than just one to scroll the embedded scrolling area, which users may not be familiar with.
• Printing may uselessly print just the small portion visible in the scrolling box, instead of all the references.
• For people who use large fonts due to poor eyesight, the usual method of specifying a small pixel height (rather than an em height) means they can see even less of the reference list.
• The proposed "solution" of requiring people who do not want this to find and click an extra link means extra page loads (bandwidth and time) of typically very large pages.

While some of them could be worked around, it seems to me the disadvantages still far outweigh the advantages. Anomie⚔ 15:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for explaining, now the workaround in question which was sand-boxed first fixes these problems you've mentioned:

• It makes it more difficult to actually read the references, as they must be read within a tiny box in the page.
• Some browsers may have issues correctly scrolling to the reference when a reference link is clicked.
• Some browsers may have issues correctly scrolling when using the browser's in-page search feature to search for text contained in the references.
• Scrolling boxes within the page can be difficult to scroll with mobile browsers. For example, some require use of two fingers rather than just one to scroll the embedded scrolling area, which users may not be familiar with.
• Printing may uselessly print just the small portion visible in the scrolling box, instead of all the references.
• For people who use large fonts due to poor eyesight, the usual method of specifying a small pixel height (rather than an em height) means they can see even less of the reference list.
• Some people think they look nicer.
• Some people think they look ugly. Very ugly. <- They are now given a choice.
• People who want to ignore the references can more easily scroll past them.

• The proposed "solution" of requiring people who do not want this to find and click an extra link means extra page loads (bandwidth and time) of typically very large pages.

Such a point applies to a few people, it's quite true, and a good reason to remove pretty much everything from wikipedia, especially images, I'm not sure it's a great argument, the point of discussion is about giving readers more than one version as a choice, if one is more popular than the other, of course to save bandwidth the more popular one should load first.

• Scrolling boxes within the page can be difficult to scroll with mobile browsers. For example, some require use of two fingers rather than just one to scroll the embedded scrolling area, which users may not be familiar with.

This would get three ticks, 1, it gives people the choice to avoid the box if they don't know how to use their fancy phone, 2, it gives people the choice to use the box as a shortcut, so they don't have so very much to scroll past when avoiding the reference section. 3, it gives casual readers who are not technically adept a better chance of getting to the external links and categories section, which, once they scroll down as far as the reference section they may assume the ref section is the end of the article.

The question becomes is the article with the box going to be more popular than the article with no box. Not choosing one or the other arbitrarily once it is possible for both to exist, and then forcing that arbitrary choice on everyone without reference to statistical analysis.

What I'm seeing here is no technical issue that the workaround doesn't address, beyond bandwidth, which is a matter of loading the more desirable page first.

If a machine is not working and has a safety tag placed upon it warning against it's usage, and then a week later a technician comes to fix it, and starts touching the machine, telling at him not to touch the machine is unhelpful. Breaking the machine again and escorting the technician out is not going to fix anything. AGF urges you identify who is touching the machine and why, and how. At some point the 'machine not working' tag has to be removed from the machine.

The article workaround was sandboxed in userspace first, then implemented in article space, then after the deletion, with suggestions that it be sandboxed again, and such was done, there was the second deletion because it was linking to userspace, which is not and never was where it's meant to be. You can't have it both ways. At some point it belongs in one place or the other. If your going to delete it, at least AGF and take the time to understand what you are deleting, and comment on why you have made such a decision in a way that indicates you have examined what it is that you are deleting, this is especially important when it is the combined work of more than one editor.

Now I'm looking for reasons why this workaround does not work, what problem it does not address. You've mentioned general problems with scroll, now please comment on the workaround specifically. Penyulap _talk 15:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

All the problems raised above refer to the version from 3 January 2012 of the article International Space Station. I don't see any workaround. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is concurrent discussion at the village pump tech section, but for clarity, I need to echo it here, as it leads to the proposal. If you want to use a collapsible box please do for text above this comment, or enclose the proposal as well, but don't separate the text below from the proposal please.

A scrolling reference box should not be the default due to accesability issues. However, I could create a gadget that will let users have the option to show references in a scroll box if there is sufficient demand.

— Edokter 16:24, 4 January 2012

Edokter, I would very much like to see such a code, or hear your ideas for it. The scrolling reference boxes are indeed in demand based upon their creep across wiki, and their stability in the articles. They aren't removed by new editors, and they are not removed by experienced editors either. IMHO it takes a careful misinterpretation of the last sentence in the current wp:scoll guide to come up with the idea that it's incorrect, and it is only that way that they are removed in my experience. I haven't had anyone unfamiliar with wp:scroll complain about them at all. I'd like to know who has a browser that can't display the scrolling section and I'd suggest that the readers here are all using browsers that can as I've had no answer to the contrary in response to my questions about that. The scroll box appears instead a very popular and stable addition to the article, I didn't code it myself, someone else coded it. Certainly they had a reason. I'm not getting any GF as you can see, I'm just getting Bureaucratic zealously for misinterpretation of wp:scroll. I'd sooner discuss the possible solutions and propose improvements to the wp:scroll than ...well, not sure how to describe it. Let's fix this issue, propose solutions at the very least. I'd rather put it in and obtain data from new readers because as I said, there has been no complaint from new readers. If there was a workaround which kept everyone happy, it would address the reasons for the box being coded and inserted initially, it's creep across wiki, and it's overwhelming stability. Please, point me to one comment from one new user that suggests the box is a problem, because I'd hate to think there is simply no objection beyond Bureaucracy, I'd like at least one comment so I can go looking for positive comments and at least have a statistical analysis.

— Penyulap 01:58, 5 January 2012

Please understand that the current consensus has been formed from years of collaboration between long-term and shorter-term editors alike. You can't expect a new user to give an informed opinion, as they simply lack the knowledge of the reasons behind the current guidelines. In fact, much of the current guidelines stem from new-user complaints with accesibility issues. I haven't seen any article with a scrolling references box yet (on the English wikipedia), but I would remove them. Accesibility has priority, and in such a way users should not have to perform extra actions to get around any issues (like clicking a link to remove the scrollbox). Now, a scrollbox-for-references gadget is easy enough to do, but only if there is demand to do so (in order to prevent a wild-growth of gadgets). And I must hear that from multiple users; there is no such thing as a 'silent majority'. That is how consensus is built.

— Edokter 02:34, 5 January 2012

What might not be clear here where I begin to waffle, is the ISS workaround I wrote with a scrolling box in the reference section took care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, by providing a link to a non-scrolling version of the article, with history attributed to the main article and all but two of the edit links directing to the main article, and an edit template mentioning that those two links didn't lead to the main article and providing links to the main article, the body of the non scrolling article which was transcluded, also had comment directing to the main article, for the two stray links.

Edokter, while I'd like to be able to find the decisions that lead to the mos, as searching archives doesn't always help, I think it would raise more problems than it'd solve. Primarily Bureaucratic thinking would be more stubborn as a result.

Now a year is a long time in changing technology, the march of the tablets and mobile phones, and so forth. Dialup is still very popular despite widespread views to the contrary. Accessibility IS my NUMBER ONE priority, so don't anyone here start throwing that at me. Now what I am getting at is there are different categories of articles and every kind has it's own particular flavor of mos. (Sorry I have to prefix some of this with mos discussion in the tech section)

The ISS is not a latest release DVD and it's not polyphase AC distribution or a list of moths, thank goodness. What suits one kind of article won't suit every article in existence. But I would like to know, and please point me in the direction of, the data that shows accessibility is a serious problem in this case. There are reasons why the External links section of this article, even after a clean-up, will still become overburdened because of the nature of the ISS project. In terms of management, the ISS is in it's own massive integration category, there is nothing simple about it in any way. Not everything can be split off into sub articles, there is still too much that can't go anywhere else eventually. The external links of this article, when completed (maybe 3-5times the size), even with the most aggressive cutting (double the present at least), will still be more important to most readers than the reference section. It's rather inevitable and will need addressing at some point. Just cutting at links and throwing out the guts of the whole thing on the premise that no solution will ever exist to scrolling just doesn't work for me. I want it understood I am not trying to sideline the reference section, but I can't see what can be done, except maybe putting it after the links and cats. I think a gadget would be appropriate in this kind of article, of which, well, there aren't too many (but then again, maybe there are others).

Fred, thank you for the useful code, but I am not concerned how the article reads for advanced users or people who have customized, I'm actually after a default behavior of the article that makes the external links harder to overlook for the first time reader, I'm worried they'll be missed entirely. It's separated by a growing ocean of refs. Is it easy / possible to use a button in the article that opens the refs out into the standard view from the scrolling box ? Just curious about that is all, as I can't see I have the stamina required to get the most stubborn to use gf and examine the problem with the idea that a solution is actually possible in this universe.

— Penyulap talk 16:42, 5 January 2012

I think what you're talking about there, is something Misplaced Pages has to face as an inevitable future. Articles will grow as the subjects are more fully understood and studied. Sure, some subjects are limited. We now know just about everything there is to know about Water, so it is unlikely that much more could be said about it. However, take an historical subject like World War II, and even though it is long since past, information about it is constantly being created. Even if there is an eventual upper limit to some articles, we must assume that a great many subjects will be almost infinitely expanded, as our knowledge expands. We know more each day about everything in the universe, and each discovery tends to lead to new understanding of old subjects. With this in mind, Misplaced Pages will almost certainly (at some point soon) have to start thinking about what constitutes an acceptable upper limit to page size. We can now create sub pages as basically separate articles, but not true sub pages. The immediate issues you are concerned about here, would be solved by MediaWiki allowing that an article could be created as a set of pages. A book of sorts. It would have its blurb, index, main pages, appendix, and addendum (where one would find the references and see-also's etc.). The idea that all the information about a subject must be categorised as either being specific enough to warrant its own page, or not (and thus crammed into ever expanding and loose pages), is going to get out of hand. maybe not so soon we should start worrying, but soon enough that we should start planning. However, building half cocked custom solutions for one page out of nearly 4 million, is simply not the way to go about solving the problem. Until the software is redeveloped to allow clean multi-paged articles, we just have to do the best with what we have. If info in the article cannot be considered notable enough (on its own) to have its own page, maybe consider that it's not notable enough to take up space on an already enormous page. Then later (either when or if), we can create clean multi-page articles, re-include the fluff. This spewage was bought to you by a lack of tea and a need for the bathroom!

— fredgandt 17:49, 5 January 2012

Well, now that you know I appreciate your help and respect you, please allow me to bb and speak with candor. That idea is such a load of garbage(not my original word). I'm surprised it came from you. There is nothing new under the Sun ? we know all there is to know ? where have I heard that before. The article isn't finished, the style is not finished, Misplaced Pages's not finished, (although I can see and describe it's marginalization in great detail) it's all moving and changing. (I could be 'finished' though, if people take too much offense at my candor). I do like great detail to be given to each persons take on the situation, it's the people who delete without a word of explanation, on what IMO turns out to be a misinterpretation, if not downright ignoring a sentence of scroll.

When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS.

— mos

This guideline is a part of the English Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions.

— top of mos page

Well, my position is this. The top of the MOS page says it will have occasional exceptions and I say to the bureaucratic thinkers show me an exception you'd tolerate in GF. There is no GF, and there is no exception they'd tolerate. Being on WP a while now, it no longer astounds me to see people stuff so much fuss and drama into such an incredibly small idea. My concern, well, you've brushed on how to deal with large articles, but I suggest this is not so much a large article it's a complex subject. A limit to size will turn the page into an index. The book idea, yes a good solution to be sure, that would address the issue, but who can push that uphill against the mass of status quo ? The MOS has a solution to this problem already, 'When using scrolling lists' and I was using a scrolling list, it clearly allows it. Certainly it shouldn't be used on every article, it would make a mess on many articles, but the strongest wording is not used in the mos, there is not just one exception, there is a whole sentence describing the exceptions. I'm wondering if the mos can link to a few of the exceptions to show you how to implement them with elegance. there are many ways to address the issue, and I'd like to see a few of them.

The mos allows the scrolling in two different ways, in the two quotes directly above, and indeed provides advice for the implementation. Penyulap _talk 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

• Proposal one change the MOS:SCROLL removing the sentence "When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS." and increase the strength of the wording from "should not be used" to "should never be used."

• Proposal two link an example article or a few example articles where scrolling lists or collapsible content is used, and care has been taken to ensure the content is still accessible..

Penyulap _talk 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

MoS/Chemistry and ENGVAR

It is my understanding that the preference of WikiProject Chemistry for sulfur and aluminium has always been taken to control only in articles that are primarily chemical in nature. When their usage notes were made part of the MoS, this (hopefully inadvertently) appeared to expand this choice to all articles. I have added a note restricting this choice to chemistry articles — I hope people agree that there is no need to override ENGVAR in non-chemistry articles. --Trovatore (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. An article on mining in the U.K. should say "sulphur" and an article about the Pepsi bottling plant should say "aluminum." Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Dunno if I was writing an article myself, but this is enough for me to not bother editing an article about mining in the UK to change sulfur to sulphur (pace my spell checker which doesn't like the former). ― A. di M.​  22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a detail to be settled in applying ENGVAR. The principle I want to clarify is that, in such articles, the relevant guideline is ENGVAR, not MOSCHEM. --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. (I should learn to make clear that when I'm disputing some small detail I'm not disputing the main point as a whole: this is not the first time I'm misunderstood.) ― A. di M.​  11:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just say "I wouldn't go in and change X to Y" so that people may reasonably construe that you're talking about your own actions rather than what the rules should say. What the Google results show is that British English has two correct spellings of sulph/fur. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

They show nothing of the kind. No dictionary of British English that I have found gives "sulfur" as the correct spelling. What they show is one or both of the following: (a) it's difficult for Google to define the corpus of British English precisely (e.g. books republished in Britain from US originals can show up in the corpus; books written by British authors and first published in the UK may use American spelling because the publishers anticipate more sales there – this is particularly true in my experience of student textbooks) (b) the incorrect spelling is sometimes used. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, an actual sourced counterargument. Very well then, my position is modified: If common British English usage uses both sulfur and sulphur but the dictionaries have not yet endorsed it, then Misplaced Pages should also hold off on endorsing it until they do. But I would like to know the names of the dictionaries you checked. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My paper dictionaries are mostly fairly old. I looked in an old 1970s edition of Cassell; the full paper OED (not sure of the edition now because I did it at the university) – this is an important check because sometimes American spellings preserve older British spellings which the full OED acknowledges but other dictionaries don't. The 1996 Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology has "sulphur, US sulfur". The Cambridge British English Dictionary online says of "sulfur": "US for sulphur". I've since also checked some British school and university textbooks for which Google has "search inside" enabled (a smaller proportion than of American textbooks, which is an issue in biassing Google searches). All only have "sulphur" (e.g. here). As former chemist and latterly a computer scientist I'm used to reading books and papers in both American and British spellings. Although in computer science we regularly use what were originally American spellings (e.g. program, disk), I've never seen this in chemistry. I can't find a single genuinely British source which has anything but "sulphur"; I strongly suspect that the sources in the Google corpus are not actually British or else they are noting that "sulfur" is the American spelling. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Should italics be added to a book title in a quote?

Under MOS:QUOTE#Allowable_typographical_changes, the guideline states, "a few purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Misplaced Pages's conventions", but also, "generally preserve bold and italics". Does that include preserving the lack of bold or italics? Specifically, if quoted text refers to a book, should the book title be italicised per MOS:ITALICS or left as is? For context, I'm trying to decide how to respond to this edit request. Adrian J. Hunter 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have, when it occurred, used italics in those circumstances. I think it falls under those "allowable typographical changes", in the same class as e.g. use of the proper dashes for ranges. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The MOS bit about preserving "bold and italics" should be changed to preserving "emphasis". We often in fact change the actual style of the emphasis (e.g. emphasis in a manuscript is almost always done with underlining, or at least was before the rise of computerized wordprocessing, since typewriters and handwriting don't really do italics or bold, and we generally don't use underlining in Misplaced Pages at all). MOS is conflating all uses of italics and bold with emphasis in this case, and that's not correct. Even HTML has recognized this for over a decade and half, with a distinction between <i> and <b> vs. <em> and <strong>. NB: Many don't know this yet, but we have, and should use, {{em}} and {{strong}} for emphasis vs. purely typographical uses of italics and boldfacing, which should still be done with '' and '''. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally would indeed prefer to use semantic tags such as <em>...</em> or <var>...</var> or <cite>...</cite> or whatever rather than apostrophe-apostrophe or <i>...</i> (unless none of the former is appropriate), but last time I mentioned that (IIRC–that was years ago) there was strongish consensus that that wouldn't be worth the trouble of making Wikitext more complicated. (BTW, look at Type of contour line: if I were writing that outside Misplaced Pages, I'd like to emphasize the word rate by a means other than italics or boldface, both of which are used in the same section for other purposes. A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, which uses italics, boldface and quotation marks for pretty much the same purposes as that section, resorts to using small caps for emphasis, but that looks awful to me; I'd probably end up using underlining. Of course I'd use <dfn>...</dfn> and <em>...</em> with stylesheets to make them display as boldface and underlining respectively, rather than <b>...</b> and <u>...</u>.) And thanks for making me find out about Template:Tag| :-) ― A. di M.​  20:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, there is wiki markup now for all of the semantic HTML elements and they've been well-accepted. That includes {{dfn}} (which isn't for boldface, it's for definitions or things like definitions), {{var}}, etc. See Category:Semantic markup templates. Great example of WP:CCC, I guess. I did most of that templating. The {{code}} page was already taken for something more complicated. I'm not sure that's been resolved yet. Guess I should look into it. Anyway, at some point I want to work these into MOS itself. While we don't need to "force" content editors to use foo instead of foo when they mean actual emphasis instead of purely typographical italics (like book titles), it needs to be clear in MOS that the distintion is meaningful and should not be reverted when it is correctly made, and is something suitable for AWB and other rapid but human-mediated cleanup. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SMcCandlish. Before long we'll be railroaded into using the original font. Tony (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've actually seen this attempted more than once! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made some tweaks to the section that I think will adequately address these issues. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A related issue is style in the titles of books or journal papers when reproduced in citations. For example, some biology books and papers correctly use italics for Latin species names in the text, but don't use italics for this purpose in the title, for whatever reason (perhaps because graphic designers don't seem to like bold italics). Some journals set titles in all caps, which I'm certainly not going to reproduce (but I have seen done), but you then need to decide between title case and sentence case in the citation. It is useful to be clear that there's no need to reproduce the original style in this context either. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I kinda thought I already captured that with the recent tweaks. I was trying to avoid a ot of WP:CREEP while also making the point that there's nothing magically special about italicization as exactly and only italicization (or its absence) in sources and quotations as long as genuine emphasis is not added or removed. Have a I failed in this effort? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Organism capitalization synch

Synching the guidelines

I'm working to make sure that WP:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms, WP:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms, WP:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species WP:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles, WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms, WP:Naming conventions (flora)#Scientific versus common names, etc., are synched with regard to common name capitalization.

WP:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species bore almost no resemblance to WP:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms, and had a lot of nonsense in it that directly conflicted with policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WP:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species did, too, and even appeared to be encouraging WikiProjects to take off into left field and make up their own capitalization rules. WP:Naming conventions (flora)#Scientific versus common names declared there was no consensus on the matter, despite the fact that WP:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms gives a clear consensus default; I fixed that, and got reverted on it by someone who said something about a "project" despite that being a site-wide guideline, not a project page. I corrected it again, but who knows whether it will stick.

On the potentially controversial side, I've made it clear, where it arises, that WP:BIRDS' position that common names of birds should always be capitalized remains controversial (which it does). My personal preference is to simply remove any suggestion that the bird-caps idea is acceptable, but this isn't about me. It's about making six (so far) guidelines stop contradicting each other and stop misrepresenting the truth. There is a default, and it does apply to plants, and it does apply to animals, even if WP:BIRDS claims an exemption and the insects project doesn't really care one way or another. We cannot have "official" guidelines telling editors six different things, some of them backasswards. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 07:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Keywords for archive search: capitalization, capitalisation, capitalize, capitalise, capitals, upper case, lower case, uppper-case, lower-case, sentence case, title case

I support the sentiment, although I have long since despaired that MOS will ever resemble a complete, coherent and stable set of guidelines that editors can learn once and then use. I think it is less helpful to make lots of complex moves and then suggest discussion afterwards - especially as these guidelines will already have been used by innumerable articles. It would be help me if you could be specific about what it is you want to change. Ben MacDui 08:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the changes wasn't clear? Our guiding document on this is WP:MOS. Some wording at WP:CAPS was a little clearer, but meant the same thing, so I merged the wording, then propagated this (in spirit, not always word-for-word - that would be tedious, and undermine the purpose of having multiple documents) to the other relevant, subordinate pages, in the interim cleaning up a lot of blatantly false information, such as the suggestion that WikiProjects just get to make up their own rules (a direct contradiction of policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS), or that there is no default. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Making guidelines consistent is good. However, this should not be done in a way which tries to change policy. For example, within WP:PLANTS there is no consensus on capitalization of common names, as is clearly stated at WP:PLANTS#Plant article naming conventions including an example which uses capitals. Plant articles use both conventions. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms does not reflect the true position of the various Wikiprojects. You seem to be making changes which imply more consensus than there actually is. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects possess no special editorial authority. Even if there were unanimous agreement within WP:PLANTS, it wouldn't override a conflicting consensus within the Misplaced Pages community as a whole. —David Levy 10:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact that WP:PLANTS has no consensus about that is completely moot, since WP:MOS does. This WP:NC subpage on plants, WP:FLORA, is a WP-wide page, not a WP:PLANTS subpage, and it has to be consistent with WP:MOS, which is pretty much the #1 most used and accepted guideline (i.e. non-policy) on the whole system except maybe for WP:RS. And WP:MOS already has a consensus that the default is always lower case. The fact that WP:BIRDS has gotten a tenuous and perennially contentious exception is only because this happened before WP:LOCALCONSENSUS became policy. This has nothing to do with "changing policy"; there is no policy at issue here (WP:NC is policy, but it doesn't speak on the matter, and its topical subpages are guidelines). And it has nothing to do with changing consensus at some project, since projects don't own WP guidelines. If WP:FLORA is in conflict with WP:MOS, or WP:PLANTS is in conflict with WP:FLORA, it's pretty clear what direction the flow of change goes. It's notable in this regard that the other projects, from primates to cetaceans, have given up trying to invent, or from some deep realm of academe import, a conflicting, pro-caps style. The boat has long since sailed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that the admonition to italicize binomina always is incorrect. Correctly, the only stipulation is that the binomina should be rendered in a different font style than surrounding text. This usually means they should be italicized within regular text; but it also means they should not be italicized when within italicized text. e.g. "All modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens." and "All modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens." are correct. "All modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens." and "All modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens." are not. I'm not sure how to put that forward so its easy to understand though.

Furthermore subspecies, varieties and other infraspecific ranks (which shouldn't be capitalized); subgenera and sections (which should be capitalized but rarely included in binomina); and others like cultivars and cultivar groups, etc. are not mentioned. e.g. Homo sapiens sapiens, Prunus (Padus) cornuta, Musa acuminata × balbisiana (AAB Group) 'Silk'.

It would probably be too complicated to explain, but they should be linked at least (Binomial nomenclature, Taxonomic rank, Cultivar, Section (botany), Subgenus, Subspecies, etc.).

Common names as an issue is dependent on WikiProjects and the individual editors. It is not usually enforced. It is true, however, that sentence case is preferred for common names in most animal WikiProjects under TOL, but it's not really a big deal and constantly arguing about it just wastes time. AFAIK most regular TOL members are already aware of this, and people who do not regularly create taxonomical articles do not usually read the MOS anyways.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot to cover.

1. Kind of a WP:CREEP issue, really. In any normal Misplaced Pages context it will be italics, and where a binomial appears like felis catus in an already-italicized passage it is auto-deitalicized, just like you would want. If you wanted to add something in there to address some case you're seeing where the style is being a problem, that might make a good new topic for discussion, but this thread's really just about synching the same basic thing in 6 places, not extending it.
2. Different taxonomic levels maybe should be covered on one of these 6 pages, but probably not the main WP:MOS; it's too much of a drill-down into detail.
3. Sure, substantive links are rarely unhelpful.
4. The entire point is that there is long-standing, stable consensus at MOS, one of the site-wide guidelines with the most collective mojo, that this it is not an issue dependent on WikiProjects, and that there is a clear preference for lower case. The "whatever projects want" approach was tried for about 6 years and it just resulted in confusion, chaos and strife (it is a big deal). Projects (primates, cetaceans, mammals generally, etc.) have been lining up with this new direction with what seems to be relief. We recognize that WP:BIRDS is opposed, and that WP:PLANTS is fence-sitting, and, well, that's that. One or two holdouts do not filibuster a general consensus. There's just no excuse for our guidelines to contradict each other, and minor subpages of the naming conventions certainly don't trump MOS, nor does its own child page (again per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). WP:TOL does appear to acknowledge MOS on this issue, and while I see that they also observe that some projects are trying to go their own way on the matter, they are no longer actively encouraging projects to make up their own standards. TOL doing so at some point, kinda-sorta, was the last shred of any reason to have any of these guidelines doing so, and that reason is now gone. Constantly arguing about it is certainly a waste of time. I've only barely begun cataloguing the amount of strife it's caused over the last half-decade. Most of it stems from the guidelines being inconsistent, so that any given project can say "well, we follow this guideline and we don't care for that guideline ." It has to stop. Not just because it pisses off MOS geeks like me, but because it upsets, confuses and discourages all sorts of readers and editors. Noobs: Sure new users don't read the MOS, but fewer and fewer biological articles are created by them, since the obvious ones are increasingly "taken", and even when they do, they'll usually model them on what they see done in other articles, which is why this does actually matter. The fact that I just had to move Przewalski's horse from Przewalski's Horse, like it was a children's book title, is shameful, especially given clear consensus at WP:MAMMALS for years now that mammal common names are never capitalized, on top of MOS saying this by default. It's a frakkin' free-for-all because of the guideline mess I'm trying to clean up. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support these efforts. WikiProjects are extremely helpful, but they don't own "their" articles and aren't entitled to establish editorial conventions contradicting those of the Misplaced Pages community at large. —David Levy 10:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a great example of why this is crucial: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 29#Relevant. It not only didn't mention MOS, it actually listed Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles as a "guideline". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A proposal of four basic points

I'm working to make sure that WP:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms, WP:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms, WP:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species WP:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles, WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms, WP:Naming conventions (flora)#Scientific versus common names, etc., are synched with regard to common name capitalization.

WP:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species bore almost no resemblance to WP:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms, and had a lot of nonsense in it that directly conflicted with policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WP:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species did, too, and even appeared to be encouraging WikiProjects to take off into left field and make up their own capitalization rules. WP:Naming conventions (flora)#Scientific versus common names declared there was no consensus on the matter, despite the fact that WP:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms gives a clear consensus default; I fixed that, and got reverted on it by someone who said something about a "project" despite that being a site-wide guideline, not a project page. I corrected it again, but who knows whether it will stick. The points, all already in one guideline or another, that I'm trying to get the text to consistently cover:

1. The default is to begin each word in common names with lower case
2. except were proper names appear in them (or the word begins a sentence or list item – obvious exceptions)
3. This applies to all common names (families, orders, subspecies, etc.) not just species: "vertebrates", "the snakes", "European wildcat", etc.
4. WP:WikiProject Birds proposes an exception and prefers to capitalize all parts of bird common names except those immediately after a hyphen; this remains controversial.

This proposal does not add anything to MOS, other than clarification that the exception WP:BIRDS claims isn't agreeable to everyone, and the obvious proviso that it's not just limited to species (i.e., don't capitalize "fish").

And that's it. I'm not trying to change anything major like "forcing X project to do Y" or "changing policy". Just stating the facts accurately and fairly and ensuring that all 6 relevant guideline pages do not conflict on these matters any longer. It is emphatically not necessary to go into some long-winded, wishy-washy ramble on any guideline about how this project on plants or that project on insects don't really have a consensus, blah blah blah. No one cares. Misplaced Pages has long had a consensus on this, even if WP:BIRDS is a holdout for an exception, and some projects never really made up their minds (they were in the way, and consensus simply went around them, like stalled cars). Most importantly, it is simply not permissible for two of these guidelines to continue to encourage WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy violations.

My contention is that #1 has been the clear consensus here for quite a long time now, and in the naming conventions at WP:CAPS. The page history of MOS and CAPS bears this out, as does every single instance of the capitalization debate appearing here. It's what all encyclopedias do, it's what virtually all general publications like mass-market books and magazines do, its what most style guides say to do when their not being vague like Chicago, and it's even what the vast majority of biological specialist publications do. Obviously #2 is incontrovertible (we mention it at all just so upper-casing here doesn't get confused with lower-casing of proper names that have become part of binomials). And #3 is likewise a no-brainer (yet still needs to be specified; my incomplete User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names archives index already shows a frequent complaint by non-bird biology editors that people are doing things like "the Tiger comes in various species and subspecies" in response to seeing capitalized bird names everywhere). At this juncture, we need not mention breeds, cultivars and other quasi-taxonomic issues, since they are separate topics, and don't seem to cause strife or confusion. Point #4, as much as I dislike giving the "caps are okay" idea any credence at all, fairly and accurately summarizes the situation, leaves the uneasy, provisional exception for birds in place, and serves the secondary purpose of discouraging any notion that it's generally okay for WikiProjects to ignore site-wide guidelines, a perennial problem of its own that ArbCom has had to come down hard on more than once, and why the LOCALCONSENSUS policy was added to WP:CONSENSUS. My afore-linked archive index already conclusively proves that capitalization remains controversial.

If anyone really wants to contradict these points, I'm curious to see on what grounds. I'm not wedded to any particular wording, but what's on the MOS main page right now seems to get the points across, and is why I've moved to have the other 5 guidelines use similar wording. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Question: OK, is there actually an existing consensus that sentence case should be used everywhere or by default, even excluding birds? Some editors assert below there is not for plants, and in the last discussions I saw (for example at WT:ANIMAL and the naming conventions pages) there wasn't a resemblance of consensus, just that those participating who wanted standardisation if only at the lower level of groups of organisms/projects went along as if there was. It's not controversial that names of taxa of higher rank than species (including birds) should not be capitalised—so basically this proposal could be simplified to: "use sentence case for all common names, except for birds even though this is wrong". —innotata 18:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a consensus. The MoS has said so for years. It is also the case that WP:BIRDS disagrees with regard to birds (and WP:PLANTS is apparently on the fence with regard to plants), but per WP:CONSENSUS policy, especially WP:LOCALCONSENSUS this does not mean that there is not a general consensus on a general default. We're even going out of our way to acknowledge the WP:BIRDS position (I disagree with doing so, but I'm not trying to change the guideline, only streamline the main guideline and make the subordinate ones stop conflicting). WP:ANIMALS doesn't set style guidelines. The wording and discussions at that project have been reflecting the fact that some projects once wanted to do things differently from the default (they all gave up except WP:BIRDS, a separate issue, discussed in another thread; controlling policy is LOCALCONSENSUS) and some are uncertain what to do (obvious answer: go with the default). There has been uncertainty mainly because the guidelines have not been synched and some have leaned toward dwelling on project uncertainties like WP:ANIMALS has – which is maybe okay for a meta-project but highly inappropriate for site-wide guidelines to be doing – instead of on what the default is, which is a MOS matter. On one level I do like your more abrupt wording, but WP:BIRDS would never accept it because the proponents of capitalization there believe their practice isn't wrong. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 20:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean, how was this consensus reached, to use sentence case by default? All you've said is that there is a consensus. In the discussions I've seen especially at naming conventions, there didn't seem to be consensus for quite what you describe. (I know what your opinion is on bird articles, but that is being discussed in other subsections.) As far as the wording of the proposal, removing uncontroversial matters, all it does is state that sentence case should be a rule everywhere but birds (whereas currently this and other pages say vaguely that sentence case is default; I'm asking about this claimed consensus). (And as a minor point it makes an opinionated comment on the position of birds editors.) —innotata 23:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

See the Manual of Style archive entries in the index of discussions about the topic in the list I've been compiling to better keep track of this issue. It' almost 2am my time, and I'm too tired to figure out when exactly it was added in wording that is clear enough for your purposes, but setting history view to 500 and paging back and back and back for several years, the advice has remained consistent: Capitalize just proper names that are part of common names, and birds are permitted as an exception, both of which are still the case with my proposed 4 points here. It had some wishy-washy wording in it that evolved out along the way, and that tightening never did make it into the other, related pages, thus my push for belated synchronization. All that's substantively changing is that MOS would acknowledge that the birds exception is obviously controversial (the fact that this page has erupted about it yet again in controversy is proof of that, as is my list), which it should have done from the start. It's regular practice in MOS and its subpages, as in other guidelines, to indicate where consensus is uncertain. Either that or to remove the disputed material entirely (here, that would mean not mentioning birds at all, just the default, and I know WP:BIRDS would raise hell about that). I don't care what the wording really is about birds, as long as the fact that it's disputed/has uncertain consensus/isn't well accepted/is one of the longest-running perennial debate topics on the entire system/is controversial/take your pick, is clear, so that editors of horse articles and fish articles and mold articles and whatever stop coming to conclusions like "oh, birds are capitalized, I guess I can capitalize monkeys too, since I like monkeys and it's not fair that birds get caps and my animal doesn't." This is presently a very severe and rapidly growing problem, already affecting thousands and thousands of articles. It needs to be stopped ASAP before it becomes totally unmanageable. Every time I've raised the issue here, I've been met with agreement on such points (as distinct from agreement and disagreement with my push to eliminate the birds exception, which is an entirely different matter). The only problem has been that the rather hard-core archivebot here archives these threads before they get acted upon, thus my making the edits first (in my view, they already have consensus, from previous threads here), and raising the discussion again secondarily. Anyway, the MOS for years and years has stably recommended capitalizing just the proper noun elements (and left WP:BIRDS alone). Given how often MOS is edited, that's an obvious demonstration of consensus on what the default is. PS: An entirely different way of looking at this is that "sentence case by default" is the general consensus default in real life for everything in the English language. No Misplaced Pages-unique consensus ever needed to actually be shown, any more than we need a consensus discussion to establish that sentences begin with capital letters or that quotations are put in quotation marks not italics. (That said, I'm sure we have had such discussions here, unnecessary as they may have been.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

NB: The earlier wording was actually much stronger: "Common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case–for example, oak or lion." I'm of half a mind to propose we simply return to that wording. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 10:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I was expecting this would show the assumption of pre-existing consensus was correct to some extent, rather, I looked through all the Manual of Style discussions tha you linked on your userpage, and clearly enough none of them resulted in any consensus. All the proposals to change the text to say sentence case should be used by default for common names or even "motions to close" ended inconclusively, like Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 87#Common names of animals. I don't see how the MoS ended up with its old or new wording, and I still don't think it's fair to editors who disagreed with sentence case (even excluding birds) in discussions with more participation, especially at Naming conventions. I also don't see why this discussion is marked as stale, since the new one is no different for the reasons I gave above. —innotata 16:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support – and if we're keeping the Bird exception, it makes sense to flag it as an exception, and a controversial one at that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Should Misplaced Pages do what general or specialist publications recommend?

I want to stress that while I have a clear, on-my-sleeve preference with regard to eventually changing the guidelines to forbid capitalization of common names (because it looks illiterate and childish; in the words of ornithologist Anselm Atkins in The Auk 100:103–104, October 1983, "s it not an embarrassment...to follow rules that contradict the usage in the world at large?" Yes, a bird scientist in one of the top bird journals), that's not the goal with the proposals above. That will need to be one of the biggest Centralized Discussion RFCs ever. The point here is to stop having our guidelines conflict, stop implying that a "we're so special" exception for one project isn't contentious, and especially stop baldfacedly encouraging LOCALCONSENSUS policy violations. It's a ridiculously disruptive mess. BTW, I can quote project talk page evidence that at least one project has been using this confusion intentionally, working the naming conventions subpages to get what they want while blatantly ignoring MOS, which they label "shit" to "keep an eye on" (direct quotes), on the basis that as long as they have one guideline on their side they're safe. It's blatant WP:GAMING of the system, and it's been going on since at least 2004. I've raised similar issues about a few sports projects ignoring the naming conventions and tendentiously trying to change them. And I'm mostly a sports and biology editor. I have no bone to pick with individuals or topics, just certain long-term disruptive behaviors. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't really pin the blame on WikiProject Birds for this. The capitalization of bird names is an established stylistic guideline. Misplaced Pages can not dictate real world usage. While Atkins criticized this position, as long as it remains a standard guideline for both the American and British Ornithological Unions (among others), we have no choice but follow it. The issue, to put it simply, is bigger than Misplaced Pages. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This view has been challenged every time it has been raised. And when it comes to ignoring consensus policy, gaming the system and years of concerted tendentious editing, yes we can "blame" those responsible, but that's a side issue. And it was actually WP:CETACEANS who introduced the practice to Misplaced Pages as a "WikiProject preference", got WP:BIRDS to adopt it, then later recanted. This discussion should not be a history lesson. For an (incomplete) history lesson on this topic, see User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The point remains even if the "blame" is on the ornithological unions rather than the related Wikiproject(s). As long as not capitalizing the name remains a standard guidelines in general style guides, we have no choice by to follow them in this general encyclopedia. If a sister project WikiOrnithologipedia were started, of course it would follow the non-general style guides. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Since wikipedia is based on sources, it should follow the usage in sources. This proposal applies simplistic rules across all specialists fields that have their own naming conventions, disregarding any and all reliable sources and authorities in the relevant field. That's bound to a) piss off many specialists that follow the sources when writing articles and b) make wikipedia look amateurish and unreliable by making clear that we will depart from what reliable sources say. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP is based on sources. We would never downcase something that is consistently capitalized in sources, according to our MOS. But a lot of wikipedians go way beyond that, and capitalize things where the sources make it clear that capitalization is not necessary. See this n-gram for example; plug in your favorite species common names. Do sources consistently capitalize it? I'm not saying we need to overturn the bird consensus, but to allow more such isolated special eye-poking (as Tony puts it) styles to develop seems like what will make WP look amateurish. Let's stick to our style that respects sources. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on following sources. Apparently disagreed on the need to restrict those sources to specialist journals. We will not depart from what reliable sources say, if all the reliable sources are in agreement. If reliable sources themselves disagree, then either we'll need a technical fix to allow multiple titles (not redirects, but actual titles) for one article, or we will have to depart from some of the sources in order to follow the others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "follow the sources" is an old PMAnderson styling concept that was pretty well rejected by consensus. I'd say "respect the sources" is a better way to say what we do; we have our own style, but sources determine things like whether a term is proper or not (we make substantive decisions by looking at sources, but we try to have a style that's more consistent than the variety of styles in sources). Once we decide that, things are easy. And this idea of two titles seems too radical to contemplate. The trouble is just that some editors (esp. Enric Naval and JCScaliger in many recent RMs) seem to ignore the provisions of MOS:CAPS in deciding what's a proper noun or proper name (based on sources, it says!) and therefore on what to capitalize. Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you choose to forget those RMs where consensus went towards following the best sources in the subject, like Talk:Halley's_Comet#Requested_move. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Or one might remember that it went with the usage in general reliable sources too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you both remember wrong. I withdrew the RM because sources and editors were both split about 50/50, and it was clear that no consensus was in sight. If I had left it going and it had closed "no consensus to move", it would still not be an endorsement of a "follow the sources" approach, unless you let Greg say which sources are best to follow. The majority of books downcase Halley's comet, as the evidence linked there makes plain. To the extent that there was support for capitalizing Comet there, it was a case of doing what "specialist publications recommend", which is what SMcCandlish is asking about; some like it, some don't. I've repeatedly pointed it out as a problem, since specialists usually like to capitalize their own stuff, in conflict with general usage. Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I prefer sentence case myself and use it in all taxonomic articles I create (I've yet to create one for birds though), but this is a classic case of WP:CREEP - attempting to legislate a one-size-fits-all rule.

In case you didn't know already, plant articles follow ICN/ICBN rules and animal articles follow ICZN rules. Both of them are extremely complicated rules (not guidelines), and though similar, in certain key areas they are radically different. Are they also doing a "we're so special" exception by following different conventions? Or do they need to stop being wusses and create a single general naming guideline for all organisms or else Misplaced Pages MOS will do it for them?

The ironic thing about it is that ICZN and ICN/ICBN actually do not control common name conventions. The sentence case "rule" is in reality a loose scientific consensus borne out of a majority preferring to use it. In fact, that's the only reason why we can choose what stylistic convention we want at all. Ornithological (also lepidopterist?) organizations, however, do standardize common names in an effort to minimize confusion. And they do have conventions that explicitly say that common names should be in title case. I personally dislike the practice, but it is a convention, and Misplaced Pages consensus does not trump prevailing conventions in reliable sources.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If that International Code thing were actually the case, it might be an interesting argument, but in point of fact, animal and plant articles demonstrably follow no rules at all, and are a hodgepodge of confusing styles, subject to frequent editwarring and movewarring, precisely because the guidelines are not consistent and appeared to (did not actually) permit random subsets of editors to make up their own rules on the fly. I've reported here before (see archive before last) that there's been a clear trend, due to "bleed-through" of bird capitalization, to rampantly capitalize everything to do with animals, from types to breeds to genera to species to clades to phyla, by largely non-specialist editors who think it's simply a Misplaced Pages style to do caps in such cases. It's a massive, massive problem, affecting tens if not hundreds of thousands of articles, and worsening every single day. The International Code stuff has a lot to say about what the names are and how they are taxonomically classified. It has nothing to say about how WP, like Encyclopaedia Britannica, etc., follows normal practice of 99.9% of the world and doesn't capitalize animal names. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that the attempt to legislate myriad-sizes-to-fit-myriad-projects would be the classic case of WP:CREEP. Yes, plants and animal articles are covered by this proposal as well. Misplaced Pages consensus might not trump Misplaced Pages reliable sources (I have no idea), but reliable sources are not restricted to specialist publications. If the New York Times or London Times or Reader's Digest treats flora/fauna names as common nouns, that's also reliably sourced. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The majority of academic journals in the field, perhaps. The majority of general English-language sources do not capitalize common names. Because Misplaced Pages is a general-English publication, it should use general-English rules rather than rules specific to a scientific field, even if that field matches the topic of the article. We're an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Make sure to tell the guys at WP:MEDRES that we put generalists sources over the best sources on the topic. New York Times might be reliable, but not more reliable than Nature for topics like physics, Wall Street Journal for economics, etc. You are also putting it above the relevant naming authorities in each field, like the IUPAC for chemistry, IAU for astronomy, etc. A sure way to piss off the specialists editing wikipedia and make it clear that we don't follow the best reliable sources when writing articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Specialist publications often are the most reliable sources regarding factual matters. This is not such a matter; this is a style issue. Neither "Common Blackbird" nor "common blackbird" carries a higher degree of factual accuracy, but only the latter reflects the style typically used in non-specialist publications.

If an academic journal and a newspaper publish conflicting factual information (e.g. pertaining to a bird's migratory behavior), it makes sense to defer to the former. But when it comes to style decisions, we're no more bound by a specialist publication's naming conventions than we are by its other style conventions. (Suppose that the most respected journal in a particular field uses title case headings. Does that mean that we should do the same for topics within its scope?)

It's important to note that specialist publications' style decisions often reflect the needs and expectations of their specialist readerships. For example, Variety contains numerous conventions that seem downright bizarre to someone expecting normal English. I'm fairly confident that you wouldn't advocate emulating its house style in Misplaced Pages articles about the entertainment industry.

According to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles, the WikiProject's capitalization preference reflects a desire to convey a distinction to which a vast majority of Misplaced Pages's readers likely are entirely oblivious (i.e. upon seeing a bird name, they probably won't realize why it's written that way). I can understand the utility in a specialist publication, but not here. —David Levy 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't think that's really why they do it. They do it because they think that's the appropriate way to write the names, by convention. To me, this is a purely stylistic matter. I've seen some publications consistently capitalize only the first word, some capitalize none, some all, etc. It's not like any of those is strictly wrong. A publication should just pick one and go with it. I think our methodology should be to pick the convention most commonly in use, which is overwhelmingly to lowercase each word except for proper nouns. But whatever we do, picking more than one style makes us look unprofessional and damages legitimacy. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, though some at WT:BIRDS have actually advanced the "it's a disambiguator" argument. And been shot down. Nothing ever happens to really do anything about the WP:BIRDS entrenchment because the matter is usually discussed on their turf, where they simply dismiss the concerns. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other participants in WP:BIRDS, but of course I distinguish between "Mexican jay" and "Mexican Jay" for clarity, and I'm glad the convention supports this practice. I have not seen this idea shot down. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see it as a slight advantage of using caps, but irrelevant in terms of answering the question "what should Misplaced Pages's style guide be". We don't make up conventions or language features based on what we decide is better. We follow sources, not lead. If I understand correctly, the ornithologist convention is at least in part motivated by this issue, so BIRDS might be doing this indirectly because of it, but it would be quite odd for us to use that rationale directly in this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Will a typical Misplaced Pages reader (i.e. one not familiar with the ornithological community's prevailing style conventions and the underlying logic thereof) recognize and appreciate the distinction ("Oh, it says 'Mexican Jay', so it must refer to the species Aphelocoma wollweberi, not to Mexican jays in general.")? Of course not. Most readers will simply wonder why the heck we're randomly treating bird names as proper nouns. I certainly did. —David Levy 22:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think some readers will, especially those who are familiar with the literature on birds, who I'll bet are overrepresented among readers of bird articles. Even those who aren't may figure out the distinction. (Probably somewhat fewer would realize that "Mexican jay" doesn't refer specifically to Aphelocoma wollweberi, but still some would.)

And this advantage in clarity is gained at no cost, in my opinion, though some people use intemperate language in describing the cost they see. I've argued at WP:BIRDS, when people suggest standardizing the order of topics or the headings in taxon articles, that standardization of this sort of thing isn't an improvement. I like Misplaced Pages to look like what it is. This works with different varieties of English. It works with other things that house styles often apply to, such as using or not using "false titles", and treating sentences in parentheses as separate sentences or as part of the previous sentence. (I just discussed this with another editor.) So I think we lose nothing in appearance or legitimacy by having species names capitalized one way in bird articles and another way in mammal articles. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If anything, our adherence to this convention probably reduces overall clarity by encouraging editors' reliance upon it to draw the intended distinction. In a non-specialist publication (whose readers are unlikely to pick up on such a visual cue), it's far more helpful to simply avoid referring to "Mexican jays" in the generic sense. (Phrases along the lines of "jays native to Mexico" and "jay species native to Mexico" are much clearer.)

In my view, this is a classic example of a specialist group of editors — undoubtedly with the best of intentions — focusing on what makes sense to them instead of what best serves Misplaced Pages's readers. —David Levy 00:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I've also addressed this issue here in replying to MeegsC; it not only doesn't generally help disambiguate (and relying on it to do so is downright foolish outside ornithology journals that accept the practice, it leads demonstrably to continual editwarring and other strife, and encourages sloppy writing, while also making the encyclopedia look amateurish to 99.9% of readers, and causing editorial confusion about how to treat common names of animals. That some small fraction of readers might grok the species/group capitalization distinction, in the limited number of cases where such a distinction needs to be made, is a very tiny step forward for a several huge steps backward. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 17:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

David Levy, it's kind of you to mention the best of intentions. I think this convention is fairly widely known—it's used in field guides of various kinds as well as in ornithological journals. If someone actually suggests a style change that applies to bird articles, there would be more to say about this. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean I'd have more to say. Maybe that's not others' criterion for whether they'd have more to say. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

David Levy, it's kind of you to mention the best of intentions.

I want to be clear in expressing my certainty that the WikiProject's members sincerely seek the betterment of Misplaced Pages. I disagree with this particular decision, but it unquestionably was made in good faith.

I think this convention is fairly widely known—it's used in field guides of various kinds as well as in ornithological journals.

Respectfully, you're still analyzing the situation from the perspective of a bird enthusiast. Most of Misplaced Pages's readers, many of whom will encounter bird-related articles from time to time, have never read an ornithological journal or field guide. —David Levy 01:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want this to turn into a debate about WP:BIRDS again, but oh well, here we go. This fallacy of forcing Misplaced Pages to be wildly inconsistent from article to article by trying to impose external style criteria from specialist publications that defy all other professional publishing criteria and which even some specialists in those fields consider "embarrassing", meanwhile no other encyclopedia or encyclopedia-like publication in the world does this, is a very perennial topic. The idea has been shredded to pieces every time it has been thorough discussed, but it unfortunately usually always gets discussed on individual article talk pages or at WT:BIRDS instead of here, where the discussion belongs. I'm not even done compiling examples yet at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names (e.g. I have not even looked in WT:BIRDS archive 20&ndash56; which is lot of material), and the logic against using some weird style imported from some but not all bird journals is already overwhelming. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting that SMcCandlish quotes a 30-year-old letter published in The Auk to support his contention that title case is not widely accepted in the scientific ornithology community, given that this page of author guidelines for that publication clearly says that "English names of birds should be capitalized." Perhaps that opinion piece was written by a minority dissenter? *Sigh* If only more people here at Misplaced Pages worried half as much about improving content as they do about these endless inane battles over capitalization! :P MeegsC | Talk 19:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you would resort to a blatant straw man. I never made any such claim that title case is not widely accepted in the scientific ornithological community. I've said here and elsewhere that while it is widespread in that very narrow field, it is not universally accepted within it today, never has been (thus the historical quotation), isn't consistent within it ("Red-Billed" vs. "Red-billed', etc.), and is uniformly rejected outside of it, e.g. even when ornithologists publish papers in broader journals. So, please try again. And for your information, I spent the vast majority of my "top 400 most active editor" time working on content improvement, thanks, so you can keep your ad hominem fallacies, too. (Never mind the fact that making the encyclopedia not look like it was written by children who can't capitalize properly has been considered a serious content improvement issue by a large number of editors for most of Misplaced Pages's existence.) Did you have anything actually substantive to add? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 20:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't expect to unleash such a heated reply! SMcCandlish, I wasn't referring to your editing history; my complaint—if it is indeed that, rather than a general moan—is that we're all getting in each others' faces (and we are, as evidenced by the increasingly snarky comments above) rather than working together to improve content, which I see as being our most important function. Personally, I have no problem with title case in some articles, probably because I'm an ornithologist by trade and familiar (after 20 years in the field) with things being written this way. I'm always slightly mystified by how much vitriol it garners here on Misplaced Pages. But hey, I'll just go my way, and let you MOS boffins bash this out. I'm glad to hear you're involved in many areas of the encyclopedia and hope to run into you again in less fraught circumstances. Peace. MeegsC | Talk 22:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I reacted so strongly. You appeared to be mischaracterizing my argument, and nothing raises my hackles more. :-) I understand that ornithologists are very used to bird name capitalization. It is such a frequent, rancourous topic of debate here because virtually no one else in the world is familiar with it, and it looks illiterate to most readers, which is why no other types of publications do it either, not even non-ornithology journals publishing ornithological papers. The distinction afforded between "the Mexican Jay species" and "jays of Mexico" by simple capitalization, as Mexican Jay vs. Mexican jay, is a) one that only ornithologists recognize, so it serves no actual purpose in Misplaced Pages, b) is confusing and automatically leads to conflict, because 99.9% of editors will parse capitalization as a typo and try to fix it, which amounts to the style serving an perennial negative effective purpose in Misplaced Pages, and c) is more broadly and consistently handled simply by writing clear prose, as in "the Mexican Jay species" and "jays of Mexico". That's what this really all comes down to, and always has for the 7+ years the debate has continued. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish - Thanks for answering my question (at the beginning of this section). My interest in this issue has nothing to do with articles about specific species, but rather in trying to find a sensible way to write about places that are lucky enough to host a variety of interesting taxa. Some little while ago I even wrote a wry little essay to myself to try and get my head around the absurdity of it all. I even managed to get a few changes to MOS that stood the test of time until your recent "synch". The essay also contains one of my favourite quotes on this whole subject and not much seems to have changed since 2008. We have an manual of style that anyone can edit. Perhaps this is necessary, perhaps not - but I can't see this kind of chaos being credibly resolved while we do. Ben MacDui 20:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please raise above, at the proposal thread, what changes you feel are being lost. Aside from removing stuff that directly conflicts with Misplaced Pages policy, like the suggestion that wikiprojects can just randomly make up their own rules, and making the text reflect reality (the WP:BIRDS exception is contentious) the intent isn't to change but to unify. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not yet made up my mind about where I stand on this whole issue, though I probably occupy similar territory to Obsidi♠n. However I presently feel uncomfortable with the emotional and at times aggressive language being used by SMcCandlish. Referring to a discussion as a "long-winded wishy-washy ramble" and using phrases such as "it pisses off MOS geeks like me", "it's a frakkin' free-for-all" and "blah blah blah. No one cares" are in my view akin to trying to bully other contributors into shutting up. In the face of such an approach, I am not really surprised that this "always gets discussed on individual article talk pages or at WT:BIRDS instead of here". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw man again: I didn't refer to any discussion as a "long-winded wishy-washy ramble"; I used that phrase and "blah blah blah, no one cares" to refer to palimpsestuous wording at one of the guideline pages which directly conflicted with WP policy, and I actually have to stand by the characterization (1. the page in question is tumid, 2. it is equivocal, and 3. it is unfocused, meanwhile 4. it does include a lot of verbiage that is inapplicable, and 5. which is thus moot – to address 1. "long-winded", 2. "wishy-washy", 3. "ramble", 4. "blah blah blah" and 5. "no one cares", in respective order). I'm sorry you are interpreting me as "hostile". It's not my intent. I'm frankly very surprised that the phrase about MOS geeks is not recognized for the obvious self-deprecating humor is, nor that my use of a fake swear-word from a cheesy science fiction TV show wouldn't be recognized for the same thing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the common names of plants use capitals. The most authoritative flora for the British Isles is Stace's New Flora of the British Isles (3rd edition, 2010). The English common names in this work are capitalized. This Excel file contains the list of common English names produced by the Botanical Society of the British Isles. The names are capitalized. These two sources are the definitive guide to the common names of plants of the British Isles. There are reliable sources which do not capitalize in this way. There simply is no consensus and it's pointless and time-wasting to attempt to impose one. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see my reply to Enric Naval, in which I address the difference between relying on authoritative publications for factual information and emulating their style conventions.

Your statement that "there simply is no consensus and it's pointless and time-wasting to attempt to impose one" again relies on the erroneous belief that consensus (or the lack thereof) within a WikiProject (or among experts in its subject area) overrides consensus within the Misplaced Pages community at large. That simply isn't so. WikiProject Plants is a valued source of guidance on botanical matters, but it possesses no special authority to determine Misplaced Pages guidelines or exceptions thereto. —David Levy 22:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My reference to "consensus" above was to the reliable sources, not to Misplaced Pages editors. The facts relating to the capitalization of the common names of plants are:

1. There is no consensus among reliable sources.
2. There is no consensus among editors who work on plant articles.

Because of (1) and (2), I do not believe that there is a consensus among Misplaced Pages editors either, bearing in mind that consensus does not mean numerical voting (as was demonstrated recently by the long discussion on "Verifiability, not truth"). A substantial number of editors have sound reasons to object to an attempt to impose guidelines/policies not supported by reliable sources. So long as this is the case, there is no consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My reference to "consensus" above was to the reliable sources, not to Misplaced Pages editors.

And I referred to "consensus (or the lack thereof) within a WikiProject (or among experts in its subject area)" .

There is no consensus among reliable sources.

1. The consensus among non-specialist publications (of which Misplaced Pages is one) is clear.

2. "There is no consensus among reliable sources" as to whether headings should be written in title case or sentence case. That doesn't prevent us from having a house style.

There is no consensus among editors who work on plant articles.

Misplaced Pages has general style conventions, which apply to all subjects in the absence of consensus to the contrary (i.e. agreement that an exception should be made). In other words, if there isn't consensus that articles about plants (or birds, or Slavic monarchs, etc.) should follow different conventions, our normal ones apply. —David Levy 00:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You (and others) keep implying that there is a consensus within Misplaced Pages on a particular style for the capitalization of common names. I (and others) keep telling you that there is not, bearing in mind that consensus does not mean counting heads. I am now only repeating myself but you don't seem to respond to this point: a significant number of editors (e.g. within WP:BIRDS and WP:PLANTS, but there are others) disagree, with reasons. Thus there is not a consensus. If you don't agree – you believe there is a consensus – then issue a formal RfC and we can all waste time demonstrating that there isn't. It's a waste of time because it's been demonstrated repeatedly (e.g. at WT:TOL) that there isn't a consensus. If that discussion were repeated elsewhere there still wouldn't be a consensus (again remembering that this does not mean counting heads). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You (and others) keep implying that there is a consensus within Misplaced Pages on a particular style for the capitalization of common names.

No, we're stating it outright.

I (and others) keep telling you that there is not, bearing in mind that consensus does not mean counting heads.

No one has claimed that consensus is determined via a head count.

I am now only repeating myself but you don't seem to respond to this point: a significant number of editors (e.g. within WP:BIRDS and WP:PLANTS, but there are others) disagree, with reasons. Thus there is not a consensus.

Consensus ≠ unanimity.

Furthermore, most disagreement seems to stem from assertions by WikiProjects not that the convention itself doesn't exist, but that "their" articles should be exempt. Again, please see Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles and Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Level of consensus.

If you don't agree – you believe there is a consensus – then issue a formal RfC and we can all waste time demonstrating that there isn't.

If you wish to challenge the longstanding guideline and policy (i.e. to argue that we shouldn't advise editors to style most common names in lowercase), you're welcome to initiate an RfC.

It's a waste of time because it's been demonstrated repeatedly (e.g. at WT:TOL) that there isn't a consensus.

I'll go ahead and link to Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Level of consensus again. —David Levy 11:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The "that 'their' articles should be exempt" point is a crucial one. WP:BIRDS cannot argue for an exemption or special case without it being an exception to something, namely a clear and longstanding WP:MOS consensus that the default is lower case. This is just very basic logic. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one trying to change policies or guidelines under the smokescreen confusing title of "synching". The full set of such policies/guidelines are clear that there is no Misplaced Pages-wide consensus. E.g. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms has Common names of species have different rules depending on the particular group of organisms. Common names of fauna are decided by individual wikiprojects, see Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (fauna). For example, the common names of birds are always capitalized. Common names of flora have currently no consensus on how to capitalize them, see Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora). So it's not for me to initiate an RfC; I accept the guidelines as they are. It would be very useful for all the relevant pages to be made consistent, provided this does not attempt to change the guidelines. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said above, it's perfectly reasonable to want to synch the guideline with each other and with policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, on the one hand, including retaining the fact that WP:BIRDS has long argued for a perennially contentious exception, and to also and severably have an opinion on what the eventual outcome of that contention should be. If you think I'm being dishonest about my intentions in some way, feel free to raise the issue on my talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend "smokescreen" to imply an intention to be dishonest, but I can see that it can be read in this way. I apologize, and have amended the term above. I do continue to think that "synching" was an unfortunate word to have used, because to me (and to other editors judging from the comments here) it did not imply that guidelines on one page would be used to over-write those on another. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Statements that WikiProjects govern "their" articles (and possess the authority to "decide" the style conventions applied thereto) are flagrantly false, as the community has affirmed (hence Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Level of consensus). WikiProjects certainly can propose guidelines, but they cannot enact them. Such decisions are made by the Misplaced Pages community at large.

The pages simply cannot be made consistent without eliminating text directly contradicting consensus-backed policies and guidelines. —David Levy 13:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We are, as before, arguing past one another, I think. I've never said that WikiProjects own their articles or can decide style conventions on their own. The three WP sections/pages I referred to (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (fauna) and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora)) are not owned by or part of any WikiProject. Changing them requires consensus, which certainly hasn't been established by discussion on their talk pages, whether or not it would exist if such a discussion took place.

Belonging to a WikiProject gives a group of editors no fewer rights than any other group of editors. There are enough editors who have objected to standardization of the style of common names in other places than this for it to be clear (to me at least) that there wouldn't be consensus wherever it was discussed. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaking a finding of consensus for a default of no-caps (which happened at MOS long ago) with a consensus that WP:BIRDS (and WP:PLANTS, whatever) must comply with that default, which remains an open and entirely different issue. NB: See the edit summaries of whoever was reverting me at WP:Naming conventions (flora). He/she was quite emphatically making a WP:OWN-type claim that this WP-wide general guideline was controlled by WP:WikiProject Plants, and revertwarring on the basis that it's more important for some WikiProject's indecision and equivocation to be reflected in the guideline that general WP consensus as established at MOS. Myself, David Levy and (in many other iterations of this debate) raising WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy problems isn't some kind of ad hominem attack or paranoia, it's based on repeated observations of actual editorial behavior.

On another note, "there is no consensus among reliable sources here is no consensus among editors who work on plant articles" is precisely why we have a Manual of Style, which already does have a consensus on what the default is. WP:WikiProject Cue sports has not developed any kind of project-specific consensus on how to format units of measurement or what are and are not appropriate uses of quotation marks. That doesn't give the project blanket license to ignore the MOS, or to get special wording added to any guideline that the project should be noted for having no consensus about such things. What on earth would make WP:PLANTS so magically special that our guidelines should spam the brains of everyone reading them with trivia about what that project has and hasn't formulated an opinion about? That not what guidelines are for.— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never said that WikiProjects own their articles or can decide style conventions on their own.

You've quoted a page indicating the latter (and objected to an attempt to eliminate the statement).

The three WP sections/pages I referred to (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (fauna) and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora)) are not owned by or part of any WikiProject. Changing them requires consensus, which certainly hasn't been established by discussion on their talk pages, whether or not it would exist if such a discussion took place.

Misplaced Pages community discussions have occurred, resulting in consensus-backed policies and guidelines directly contradicted by the text in question. If a page somewhere explains that "original research is encouraged at Misplaced Pages", we needn't "establish by discussion on its talk page" that this should be changed. (To be clear, I'm not equating the disputed text with that hypothetical statement.)

Belonging to a WikiProject gives a group of editors no fewer rights than any other group of editors. There are enough editors who have objected to standardization of the style of common names in other places than this for it to be clear (to me at least) that there wouldn't be consensus wherever it was discussed.

Again, those editors advocate exceptions to a default convention whose existence they acknowledge. No one has asserted that such exceptions cannot be made, but WikiProjects themselves lack the authority to institute them. —David Levy 20:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I accept (and throughout have accepted) that WikiProjects don't have such authority. I had thought that this was clear from what I'd written, but obviously not. It seems that we agree that:

• The default in Misplaced Pages is that common names of organisms are not capitalized.
• Exceptions can be made.

We seem to disagree, I think, that:

• Exceptions have been supported in the MOS.
• This support cannot be removed without consensus.

The exceptions for some groups of organisms have been at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms since 25 May 2010, when the material was moved from the main MOS page. I haven't checked exactly when the exceptions were added to WP:MOS, but they were there (with wording which seems to me even more supportive of exceptions) on 7 January 2009. So the exceptions have been present in the MOS or its subpage for at least three years. To me, this establishes a consensus supporting exceptions.
My point about WikiProject editors having the same rights as other editors is only in relation to the following point. To change Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms requires consensus. A discussion could be initiated to achieve consensus. I predict that it will fail to achieve a consensus, because those editors who have objected to not using capitals at places like WT:TOL will repeat those objections in any new discussion, and although they may be in a minority, they will be able to demonstrate that there is a lack of consensus to make the change. So such a discussion would just be a waste of time. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I accept (and throughout have accepted) that WikiProjects don't have such authority.

You've quoted (and oppose efforts to change) a page explicitly stating that "common names of fauna are decided by individual wikiprojects."

It seems that we agree that:

*The default in Misplaced Pages is that common names of organisms are not capitalized.

Okay, it wasn't clear that you acknowledge this.

*Exceptions can be made.

Yes, it's possible to make exceptions to almost any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. But WikiProjects lack the authority to enact such rules on their own.

We seem to disagree, I think, that:

*Exceptions have been supported in the MOS.

*This support cannot be removed without consensus.

At the present time, no one is attempting to remove the statement that an exception exists for bird names. Some of us disagree with the rule and question the process through which it arrived in the MoS, but we don't deny its existence.

This is very different from a situation in which a WikiProject is torn on whether an exception should be made. Even if WikiProjects did possess the authority to make such a decision on their own, these are cases in which they haven't. As you've acknowledged above, "the default in Misplaced Pages is that common names of organisms are not capitalized." So when a group of editors (whether it's a WikiProject or a cross section of the entire Misplaced Pages community) discusses the possibility of making an exception and fails to reach consensus, the default applies. As SMcCandlish notes, there's no reason to mention the fact that there isn't consensus to make an exception. —David Levy 22:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Could this sort of thing be articulated briefly as bullets at #A proposal of four basic points, above? The proposal has been lost amid the arguments. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(To SMcCandlish) Sorry I haven't read all of this but I'm concerned because on one hand you said you were syncing various guides with regard to common name capitalization (which on the surface that sounds like a good idea), but on the other hand you're arguing passionately for changing the guidelines at some level (e.g. of birds). These two things should NOT be done at the same time. If you're syncing the documents, then please don't do it with the agenda of making capitalization guidelines reflect how you think they should be. Please only do it to clarify, document and point to the ways in which Misplaced Pages currently operates. If there's debate still to be had, it should be done afterwards. Sorry if I've misread your intentions, as I haven't read through everything here, but that is my concern. e.g. if you just wish to sync the documents, then you'd make sure that anything that mentions capitalization also mentions that birds have their own rules. TL;DR: If you're still arguing for changing any guideline anywhere then you shouldn't be "synchronizing" the documents, as that seems like code for "changing the guidelines." —Pengo 21:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(I don't think anyone's read all of it!) I forked this into separate threads under separate headings to divide the two issues. Someone other than me re-opened this as a "get WP:BIRDS to stop capitalizing" debate, despite my disclaimer that this wasn't the purpose of my initial post, and it's been drowning out the proposal. I have an opinion on both the birds topic and on my original proposal of synching the guidelines, in which I've made it plain that I'm not trying to change behavior with regard to birds, only fix guideline (and, in fact, policy) conflicts. By way of analogy, I could be strongly in favor of making sure that federal, state and local health department regulations were all consistent on the matter of sushi restaurants, and most importantly not in conflict with other law, while also being in favor of banning certain kinds of sushi (poisonous, endangered, whatever), without inserting any banning language into the effort to clean up the regulatory mess. The language synching the guideline on capitalizatoin does point only to current practice and facts. Everything that does mention capitalization of species names would/does mention birds, and also mentions that the fork in practice is controversial, which is a clear and important fact. I needn't be beaten up for putting my position, in another thread, on whether or not such a variance should be tolerated. Would you rather that I had pretended to be neutral on that topic, and sneakily tried to manipulate the guideline language, like removing mention of birds from several of the documents? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

But that's what sync means: identifying where things disagree and changing them to bring them into agreement (into sync). "Sync" is not "summarize" or "document the current state". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

But agreement on what? The existing pages demonstrate a lack of consensus and this is what the synched pages should say. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If all the pages listed what was agreed upon in what circumstances then they would be "synchronized". That's a reasonable thing to do. Asking for consensus on a single naming scheme across all kingdoms isn't going to work and just rehashes old debates, as we can see from the comments already. —Pengo 12:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreement on #A proposal of four basic points, of course. I have no illusions that the birds and plants flamewar will come to any agreement or resolution at this time. It's a distraction, really. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because a source is reliable in one capacity does not mean that it is reliable in other capacities. I'd go with specialist sources for facts, but I would go to general sources to learn common usage and to style guides to learn what is correct. I see no problem with an article on birds that quotes facts from ornithology journals but is otherwise composed according to general-English rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I um, ... Darkfrog, I agree with you. Partially. (There, I said it.)

Editors, note the section below: #Concerns over "proper nouns": changing the lead at WP:MOSCAPS. The issue is not just proper names; it also concerns the perennial but needless tensions between so-called reliable sources and our Wikipedian guidelines. I think people will find that the theme touched on here is set for a really good systematic treatment there also. We have to sort this matter out generally. MOSCAPS is as good a place as any to get serious.

Noetica 12:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(To Noetica) Given your normal extremely careful use of language, you might want to reconsider the "so-called" above. If the sources are not actually reliable (i.e. are only "so-called") then there isn't a tension. The tension is between Misplaced Pages guidelines and sources such as those for the common names of birds or the common names of British plants, which are agreed to be reliable for content, but which some editors regard as not reliable for capitalization style. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course they're not reliable for capitalization style; they aren't style guides. And style guides aren't reliable sources for the taxonomic classification of organisms. Why are we even discussing this? (PS: Agreed on the "so-called"; no one is questioning whether biology journals are reliable sources for biology facts.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Style guides, like grammar guides, etc., ultimately reflect good style rather than making it. We long since abandoned the notion that language usage can be legislated (although it can be influenced). So studying the styles used by reliable sources is a perfectly valid way of gathering evidence in a discussion about what style to adopt. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And reliable sources (apart from some specialist publications, which Misplaced Pages is not) overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of organisms.

There's no dispute that specialist publications generally are the most reliable sources of factual information within their respective fields. This doesn't mean that their style decisions carry more weight than those of other reliable sources. As noted above, these often reflect the needs and expectations of their specialist readerships (which can vary greatly from those of a general audience).

Style guides, apart from those utilized by specialist publications, reflect general usage. So does Misplaced Pages...for the most part. —David Levy 02:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur. KimL's argument seems to be that we should consult the experts, and we should. Ornithologists are experts on birds and the composers of style guides are experts on what should and shouldn't be considered a proper noun. We're not asking style guides about taxonomic classification. We're asking them about how to write for a general audience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr
What, I'm off for one freakin' day and I find such a wall of text? I guess it is about the capitalization of bird names, but can anyone summarize it? (BTW, I think the scene starting at 08:57 of this is relevant. :-)) ― A. di M.​  20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Better off ignoring it and just going to #A proposal of four basic points. The birds debate is rehash and won't be resolved here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BIRD

Congratulations, another generic editor who thinks that his absent of knowledge is a reason to force lower caps to WP:BIRDS. Sorry if this is perceived as an insult, but observing that someone does not know where they talk about despite that this topics has been discussed over and over again is an observation, not an insult. So, what are the issues?

Proper Nouns vs common nouns

Proper Nouns are capitalized, common nouns are not. The question is what constitutes a Proper Noun. Misplaced Pages has an entry about Proper Nouns:

• "A proper noun or proper name is a noun representing a unique entity (such as London, Jupiter, John Hunter, or Toyota), as distinguished from a common noun, which represents a class of entities (or non-unique instance of that class)—for example, city, planet, person or corporation."

So, the key is to determine whether plant and animal species are Unique Entities. Well, they obviously are, as we talk about the Long-leaf Pine as a unique entity in the form of a described species with a proper scientific name, and not about the long-leaf pineS as an group of individuals that have been grouped into a cluster for convenience. So, the question becomes why most plant and animal species are NOT capitalized. The reason is that many names have not been standardized across groups of species. When you have multiple names available for a species, neither of those names have not (yet) become the unique identifier for the unique entity. So, the key is whether names have been standardized and hence have become unique identifiers of a unique entity. With birds, this has happened: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/ World Bird Names. Ultimately, wikipedia is based on what reliable sources tell us. But what constitute reliable sources for the capitalization of bird names? We cannot expect that generic sources are familiar with all the details of specific subfields. To then turn around and use those as a stick to beat subfields into submission is therefore grossly inappropriate. What you have to do is to see whether you see a consistent change when you go from the generic to the specific, in this case, towards bird specific literature. And if you do that, what you observe is that almost all ornithological literature uses capitalized names. See here for a list. Sure, you can probably find a few, especially older references that suggest the opposite. But we are living now, not decades ago, and current sources are far more reliable for current practices than ancient literature. As for the consistence fallacy, the MOS is riddled with perceived inconsistencies. I would say that the allowing the random first choice of American vs British English to dictate which language form dominates. This is a far bigger inconsistency than the consistent application of capitalized names for birds. Based on sheer number, American editors could easily force American English as the norm for the American Misplaced Pages project. -- Kim van der Linde 16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the above, I think you'll see that nobody is actually trying to force lower caps on BIRDS this time; I'm not sure who your "generic editor"(?) tirade is directed against. You've made this argument before about standardization conferring "proper name" status before; it seems quite novel—can you point me to any references or style guides that support this? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring what I wrote and asking for a GENERIC source again does not change the argument I made. Do you have a generic style source that explicitly discusses why bird names should be lower case despite general in the field? -- Kim van der Linde 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Haugen's point is the same one everyone has been making about this "proper name" argument for ~7 years: "". The idea isn't support by, well, anything anywhere. I have a large number of style guides (general, legal, academic, journalist, even governmental) and not one of them treats the common names of any species, including birds as proper nouns, nor recommends capitalization of them for other reasons. Look, the fact that non-ornithological refereed journals do not upper-case bird common names even when publishing ornithological papers is pretty much the end of the line for this entire argument. It's simply a quirk of most (not all) ornithology publications, and nothing else. WP:NOT an ornithology publication. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 20:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Kim—no, I don't have any style guides, I'm not sure why you're asking this? I'm not trying to "change the argument (you) made"—what do you mean? I don't think I ignored anything you wrote, what are you talking about? I'm curious about this "standardization confers proper name status" argument that you keep using, though; can you point me to anything to read more about it? Did you make it up? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would that be a "key" to anything? Cats (Felis catus) and dogs (Canis familiaris) are unique species according to taxonomic authorities (yes, there's some suggestion they should be merged with the African wildcat and the grey wolf, respectively, but then the result of that merger would still be cats and dogs, per taxonomic precedence, and still be unique species, with identified subspecies). Yet we would never capitalize such animal names: "Smith had two Dogs and 1 Cat." The idea that the common names of birds or pines are proper nouns has been discussed and dismissed many, many times. The idea that Misplaced Pages editors and readers are so stupid and illiterate that they are incapable of distinguishing between a species and a similarly-named group of species by simple appropriate use of prose, as well as the idea that anyone but a taxonomic specialist steeped in the would even recognize capitalization in one place and lower-casing in another as a special attempt at such disambiguation, have also been repeatedly derided, debate after debate, year after year. The fact that this debate reappears 20+ times per year, usually initiated by completely different parties, in every forum in which it could reasonably arise is solid proof that the idea of capitalizing species common names does not have consensus on Misplaced Pages. The only places it ever has the appearance of even a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which isn't valid anyway, is at WT:BIRDS where the issue is unfortunately most frequently raised. As noted by other above, Misplaced Pages uses reliable sources to ascertain facts, not to dictate style, and the capitalization style under discussion is not used by anyone anywhere in generalist publication, only in a very, very narrow subset of specialist works. It is not used in newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed journals outside ornithology (and apparently a few other specialties like certain insect and plant genera), encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc., etc., etc. The source evidence is overwhelmingly against such practice, so the extent that MOS cares. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 17:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dogs and cats are mammal names, and there is no list of official mammal names, hence lower case. The proper noun argument has never been dismissed properly, as has been discussed many, many times and contrary to your assertion. -- Kim van der Linde 17:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That defies the facts, sorry. The recognized common name of the cat is cat or domestic cat (depending on source; there are multiple lists of mammal names produced by multiple authorities); neither is ever capitalized as such. I invite others to |read the catalogue I've been amassing of previous iterations of these arguments, in which you'll find frequent baldfaced assertions like this that common names of species are proper nouns, and essentially no evidence ever to back that up. In reading all of that, I have yet to see one single reliable source of any kind any where make such a claim. Even in ornithology, the publications which prefer title case for common names do so because they feel it aids in clarity (the oft-cited and silly "the Mexican Jay" vs. "Mexican jays" distinction that it better handled with simple clear writing), not because of any notion that "Mexican Jay" is a proper name like "George Washington" or "Madagascar". Some WP:BIRD people have advanced the argument that it is one, but their own journals do not support this view, and this has been pointed out to them more than once. Simply changing the venue of the argument isn't going to change these facts. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the list of standardized mammal names that is the key in determining whether names of mammal species have become proper nouns? -- Kim van der Linde 20:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You're begging the question. As SMcCandlish has noted, even ornithological journals don't claim that the names of bird species are proper nouns. —David Levy 20:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Support for capitalizing common names is far too dependent upon logical fallacies like that one. Ten thousand lists of animal names wouldn't have any bearing on the proper name issue one way or another, because biological taxonomy organizations and their lists have nothing to do with grammar. It's like asking for the list of standardized grammar rules that is the key in determining whether the cat is properly classified as F. catus or F. silvestris catus. Kim, you're confusing two different types of authority. It really doesn't matter whether a bird-related organization has declared their list "official" or not. It's immaterial. Compare the fact that "aluminium" is the official IUPAC name of the element often spelled aluminum; neither are capitalized. If IUPAC started capitalizing "Iron" and "Hydrogen" in its geology and materials-science journals that wouldn't mean Misplaced Pages (or anyone else) should start doing so, and it certainly wouldn't magically, as if by the hand of God, transmogrify iron from a common to a proper noun, no matter how "official" IUPAC considered the matter and or how little IUPAC had in the way of competition for recognition as authoritative. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 21:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(To Kim van der Linde) Although I don't favour changing the existing support in the MOS for exceptions to the default non-capitalization of common names, I do agree with SMcCandlish that the proper name argument is a poor one, and I urge you to abandon it. In the current understanding of English grammar, common names of species are not proper nouns or noun phrases (although they do share some of their properties). Noetica has clearly explained here that capitalization "conventions are independent of status as a proper name." The issue we should all focus on is what the convention should be for the capitalization of the common names of organisms in Misplaced Pages: whether there should be a Misplaced Pages-wide guideline that all common names should not be capitalized or whether there should be exceptions where reliable sources use capitals. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Could we please focus on #A proposal of four basic points, above? I've already conceded that the bird-caps-or-no-bird caps isn't going to suddenly be resolved here, and the wording tweaks I have proposed do not eliminate the birds exception, only mention that it is controversial (which is obvious, but not obvious enough because editors of horse and cat and fish articles have been emulating WP:BIRDS practice). It is normal for MOS to mention when something is controversial. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you propose to deal with lists within articles? I am fairly indifferent as to whether species names are capitalised within species articles provided they have internal consistency. What, to me, does look absurdly amateurish is a phrase such as "on Foo island there are populations of grey seals, European Herring Gulls, brown trout, and Cancer pagurus" or similar. MOSCAPS suggests "Use a consistent style of capitalization for species names in articles covering two or more taxonomic groups" and provides suggestions suitable for different kinds of article. I am not in favour of anything that is going to recreate silly edit skirmishes involving Wikiproject members trying to scent mark parts of lists regardless of consistency - and it seems to me your proposal does just that in its current form. Ben MacDui 11:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Even WP:BIRDS acknowledges repeatedly that their would-be standard is only to be applied to ornithology articles, e.g. here ("we only really insist on capitalisation on ornithological articles") in a case of (interestingly enough) conflict between birds capitalization and plants lower-casing. So, in your Foo Island case, it would have to be lower case, per basic logic, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, per MOS having a lower-case default for years now, and per WP:BIRDS's own admission that the extent of the authority they're trying to exert is bird-specific articles. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 21:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm.. How about a middle ground then? Title case for bird common names in bird articles. Sentence case everywhere else? They would be wikilinked anyways. That would satisfy both internal consistency and external convention.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Although it has been repeated here several times, it's not the case that the capitalization issue only applies to the common names of birds. It also applies to the common names of plants; the difference is that plant editors are more divided, so both styles are found, whereas (almost) all bird articles use capitals. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And as others have pointed out here, that's totally moot. The MOS default has been, since at least 2008, to use sentence case. WP:PLANTS had an opportunity to come to a consensus to side with WP:BIRDS on this and fortunately didn't, and there's nothing more to the story. It's of no consequence that some botany publications use upper case for plants. Some books about mammals do that too, just like some books about skateboarding capitalize the names of all skating tricks and moves. It's no germane to what MOS advises, which is to follow 99.9% of usage in the real world. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 21:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully its uncontroversial that a single capitalization scheme should be used in a given article. If anything seems to contradict that then let's fix it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 11:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely! Each article should use consistent capitalization or not for all common names, regardless of organism. Unless and until there is Misplaced Pages-wide agreement, this issue should surely be treated as spelling is under WP:ENGVAR: always consistent within an article. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why this is nothing like ENGVAR has already been covered. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 21:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an existing "Misplaced Pages-wide agreement". MOSCAPS states:

Use a consistent style of capitalization for species names in articles covering two or more taxonomic groups. This could involve the use of:

• scientific names throughout (often appropriate for specialist articles);
• title case for common names of species throughout, and lower case for common names of groups of species (the Golden Eagle is a relatively large eagle; see WP:BIRDS); or
• lower-case initial letters for common names, which may work well for non-specialist articles that refer to different taxonomic groups.

My concern is that the proposal above will eliminate the common ground. Please bear in mind that for some articles, birds and plants will form the backbone of any description of the flora and fauna. If the second option above or some variant is not available, then there are potential problems. In my experience the only thing that works is either a blanket ban on caps for anything other than proper nouns, or the option to use title case for all species if needed. Ben MacDui 16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't argued for eliminating the advice in MOSCAPS to use a consistent style throughout an article. The only reason any such advice would ever be needed, however, is because of the WP:BIRDS issue. The second point from MOSCAPS above, that it's okay to use title case for species, generally, directly conflicts with MOS. MOSCAPS is a subordinate subguideline to MOS, a drill-down into details, not a place to make up wild exceptions that also violate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. And it elevates birds and the exception some want for them to the level of canonical MOS example, which is simply not acceptable. I don't understand why you are proposing such a sharp false dichotomy, as if no middle ground could exist between having no rules at all, or just forbidding upper-casing of common names (fine by me!). The clear path for the short term is to always use lower case, except for birds until the conflict about that usage is resolved one way or another. It's less productive to get into edit wars with WP:BIRDS editors that to simply work around them and use normal English grammar in all other articles. WP:PLANTS has already said they can't make up their minds on the issue, so they now have a simple default to fall back on and can stop arguing and go back to writing articles. The issue's been settled by site-wide consensus for them at MOS since at least 2008. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 21:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the conflict with MOS? What do you mean by "The clear path for the short term is to always use lower case, except for birds"? If by this you are implying everything in a list should be lowercase except birds, then you are failing to understand the nature of the issue. What "dichotomy" do you think is proposed? The only thing I am proposing is that the existing wording of MOSCAPs be retained, or that a credible alternative is agreed on. If you have such a proposal, please explain what it is. Ben MacDui 19:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Going back to what the guideline should say, yes we should say "but this remains controversial." 1. It's true; I cite this set of conversations as evidence. 2. It will tip off editors that the prevailing style in bird-based Misplaced Pages articles should not necessarily be copied on articles about other species, which is the main practical problem that's been brought up over the past few days.

We should not say "bird guys are doing it wrong" because that's mean and we don't need to give people more reasons to be annoyed at each other. We also should not say "bird species should be regarded as proper nouns" because they shouldn't, or at least there is no consensus that they should. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. PS: Trying to recognize bird names as proper nouns would have massive fallout. Aside from general revolt on the part of all editors with better grammatical sense, it would leading to chaos among those lacking such sense, as all of them editing equines or arachnids or epiphyllums or whatever articles would naturally decide their favored organisms were also proper nouns. Meanwhile (and I've already seen this proposed several times), some would advance the view that only bird names are proper names among all species because some organization declared them "official", meaning Misplaced Pages would be giving blatant favoritism to that organization, as if God or UN international law had given them a higher level of authority than nomenclature organizations in other fields, and this would open a huge WP:NPOV can of worms. Oh, and of course the rest of the world would laugh even more than usual at how untrustworthy and controlled Misplaced Pages is by weird special interests with agendas to push. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 01:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I've never heard anyone say they thought Misplaced Pages was "amateurish and untrustworthy" because people used title case while naming birds. I have, however, heard many say that about the fact that we allow vandalism to happen (through our "anyone can edit" policy), about stubby, unreferenced articles, articles with strong POVs, obviously biased biographies, April Fool's front pages, the strong emphasis on cartoon characters and video games, etc. Let's not overemphasize what is, for many readers anyway, a relatively minor issue compared to what they see as the real problems of Misplaced Pages! MeegsC | Talk 02:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines and local consensus

Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines states about guidelines: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The allowance of exceptions basically means that NOT every page has to conform to this guideline. MOS is NOT a policy, and hence cannot be enforced as in what editors SHOULD follow. Consensus within WP:BIRD with some support outside of that is that Bird Names are Capitalized. This is an exception that is allowable under the guideline rules. So, if you want to change this exception, you have to convince the people at the bird pages and you cannot just try to force the topic from above as if MOS is a policy. This continued trying to force a guideline as a policy has to stop. -- Kim van der Linde 22:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And yes, 0.5% of the articles does definitely constitute an occasional exception. -- Kim van der Linde 22:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"The allowance of exceptions basically means that NOT every page has to conform to this guideline." Um, that's true of every guideline on the system, all the time. We do not need to add wording to any guideline saying so. The extant and proposed wording already notes that an exception is claimed for birds. To the extent that plant and butterfly editors here and there disagree with one another about capitalization within their field, that's not germane at the site-wide consensus level, and we cannot specifically enumerate every possible would-be exception, because someone somewhere thinks everything should be capitalized. The only reason that WP:BIRDS's tenuous exception is mentioned, aside from the project's years of blatant tendentiousness on the issue, is that it predates the codification of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as a policy against local consensuses of the kind you believe are broadly permissible. So, arguably that one case deserves a fair hearing-out. I actually disagree with that view but enough others entertain the WP:BIRDS arguments that I'm outvoted on the matter. No one's trying to "force" anyone to do anything, and no one's trying to change policy. Well, actually that's not true. You and a cadre of WP:BIRDS editors are trying to force all 99.5% (by your own count) of other editors on the system to engage in stylistic practices they know are grammatically wrong every time they edit in an article about birds, and to pretend that your wikiproject's preferences on the matter constitute something like a policy. PS: The fact that you actually just wrote "Bird Names are Capitalized", misusing capitalization as a form of emphasis, does not bode well for your understanding of what this debate has always really been about. PPS: I have no idea why people perpetually arrive at WT:MOS to talk about MoS "enforcement", as if renegade wikicops showed up at their doors and threatened their families. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, you are not trying to change POLICY, but guidelines. And those allow exceptions. WP:BIRD editors only cover ornothology articles, not the rest and the number of non-bird editors at those pages is far lower than the bird editors, so your misguided claim of forcing things to 99.5% of the editors is as incorrect as your understanding of proper nouns. It is style purists that will suggest that deliberate and premeditated usage of style elements is equivalent to misunderstanding a discussion. -- Kim van der Linde 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is getting circular. You've already made the point (unnecessarily - everyone here understood it already) that there can be exceptions to guidelines, which is why they're guidelines not policies. I've already agreed with you. I've already pointed out that the MOS already makes the exception you want. Yet you are still unhappy. At this point, the most obvious solution to me is to simply remove any mention of birds and ornithology from the guidelines. As you say yourself, WP:POLICY already makes it clear that there can always be exceptions. Ergo, we obviously needn't mention any one particular project at all.

My understanding of proper nouns is the same as that of the vast majority of other editors including those who have commented on this topic, this time and the previous many years worth of times, and reliable sources on English grammar. I urge you listen to your colleague Peter Coxhead, who has already suggested you are advancing a "proper name" argument that no one believes in.

"Misguided claim"? Are you telling me that the "95%" (more like 99.9+%) of editors on the system who aren't ornithologists are perfectly free to stop capitalizing bird names in bird articles, then? The fact that non-WP:BIRDS editors rarely edit bird articles is kind of sad, and probably reflects the blatant hostility your project displays toward people who question its ungrammatical naming scheme. You'd think after seven years of strife that your project would take the hint. And why do you think that frequency of editing equates to style control? If I really hop to it and become the most active editor of, say, Islam and other key pages about that religion, does this mean I get to dictate style on pages about Islam and Muslims? Perhaps most important of all, why do feel that participants in WP:BIRDS are a different class of people from everyone else, with a different collective opinion about anything? Recognizing many names on that list and nothing their absence from this debate over the years, suggests that the capitalization things is not at all on the majority of "birds editor" agendas. I can go join that project right now. All being a "member" of the project means is that you are expressing an interest in improving bird-related articles. With over 100 participants listed, it is very interesting that only around 5 of them ever seem to care about this perennial debate.

I don't have to a be "style purist" (are you a "style rebel"?) to note that your intentional misuse of capitalization as emphasis calls into question the credibility of your arguments with regard to the topic at hand, much as if e.e. cummings had decided to comment on the matter, too. If you were just kidding, the joke did not go over well, and gave the impression that you are simply "sport debating" about capitalization because you like capitalizing things. Please tell me that's not the case. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 01:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I am definatly not a style rebel as I actually use reliable sources for determining that Bird Names Are Generally Capitalized in Bird Literature, and articles have to be based on the available reliable sources. And no, I am not sport debating, but I do defend what I think is the right way to do it, which includes attempts to use the salami slicing technique to slowly but surely change the wording towards the preferred outcome. -- Kim van der Linde 02:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am definatly not a style rebel as I actually use reliable sources for determining that Bird Names Are Generally Capitalized in Bird Literature, and articles have to be based on the available reliable sources.

Misplaced Pages isn't bird literature; it's a non-specialist encyclopedia. Non-specialist reliable sources style common names of birds in lowercase. —David Levy 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The allowance of exceptions basically means that NOT every page has to conform to this guideline.

No one disputes the fact that guidelines can have exceptions. But such exceptions must reflect consensus within the Misplaced Pages community, not merely among WikiProject members or other editor subgroups (whether organized under a banner or not).

Consensus within WP:BIRD with some support outside of that is that Bird Names are Capitalized.

WikiProject Birds possesses no special editorial authority over ornithological articles. You refer to "some support outside of that", the extent of which is key. —David Levy 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandwiching text between images

Was the removal of no sandwiching of text between images here intentional? Articles are showing up at FAC with sandwiched text, so I just need to be sure that's no longer in MOS (and I wonder why)? Also, why is it still here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary said it was removed along with other stuff for being redundant with other pages, and the fact that it's still in MOS/Images would seem to bear this out. There's not been a consensus to remove it from MOS entirely, that I've seen, and it is still in an MOS page, so FAC should still care. I'm not sure removing it from MOS proper was a great idea, though. Is it important/common enough to be here, or is it okay just in the /Images subguideline? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On the first, thanks; on the second, that's for you all to decide :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the no-sandwiching point needs to be included in MoS main page: it's very important. Tony (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There was some discussion at FAC, that sandwiching is usually less an issue than people thing. If it is a very wide view monitor, then the sandwich does not cause the text to be too small. If very narrow, less likelyn for the sandwich to occur (text pushed down). Just a useful insight. No biggie.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But when the sandwich occurs even on narrow monitors, that's bad. ― A. di M.​  23:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think this is a very important point that should remain. Comes up often for me. In fact now that a few have voiced concern about the change, should it not be reinstated and a wide talk on the matter made more visible for the greater community to talk about? Moxy (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Linking within quotations

Is it really the popular opinion that linking within quotes should be avoided because it "may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader"? I was directed to WP:MOSQUOTE when some wikilinks I had added to a quote were removed (here). I'm fine with their removal because the guideline does seem pretty clear that they shouldn't be there, but I'm having trouble understanding why they shouldn't be there; the links look helpful to me. (I guess I'm also puzzled as to what circumstances would be the exception, since the guideline says to avoid the links "as much as possible.") Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept the notion that adding a link alters a quote. Also, I don't accept the notion that it reduces clutter, because if the link is helpful, then additional words will have to be added to the article to accommodate the link. I don't think the guideline should extend any further than to suggest that if there are several appropriate locations for the link, it would be better to place it outside the quote. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not always even true, in my view. Trying to explain what a quotation meant with linked verbiage after the quotation can get wordy, awkward and even push WP:NOR limits. I raised the issue myself here, and seemed to get a lot of traction, but then this abbreviated discussion contradicted. That this keeps coming up without getting resolved is further evidence that my frequent complaint that this page is archived too fast has merit. Anyway, the "as much as possible" wording really doesn't make any sense without context, since 100% of the time is "possible". I could even write a bot that enforced it 100% of the time and left tooth-gnashy WP:UWT warnings about it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've discussed this here before, and my views haven't changed. In certain cases, it is preferable to ignore WP:MOSQUOTE. However, I feel the guideline is sound, and should be observed in the majority of cases. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

See WT:MOSLINK#Links in quotations. ― A. di M.​  20:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerns over "proper nouns": changing the lead at WP:MOSCAPS

Colleagues, please take note of this new section at WT:MOSCAPS:

"Proper nouns", "proper names", and other concerns: amending the lead

Your contributions to discussion would be appreciated.

Noetica 00:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Change proposal with regard to common names

 Request withdrawnThe current entry about capital letters of Animals, plants, and other organisms contains the following statement:

• "Common names generally do not have each word capitalized, except were proper names appear (maple tree, zebra, but Przewalski's horse). WP:WikiProject Birds proposes an exception to this general rule, with the official common names of birds capitalized (Bald Eagle); consensus on this idea remains uncertain."

Despite many many discussions, the rules for capitalization of birds have never been changed. So, I think it is time we clarify this in the MOS. I therefore propose to change the above sentence to:

• "Common names generally do not have each word capitalized, except were proper names appear (maple tree, zebra, but Przewalski's horse), or when the names within a group have been formally standardized and should be regarded proper nouns, such as the names of birds."

Too add, MOS is a guideline. This is what the official policy page about polices and guidelines has to say about guidelines: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Obviously, Capitalization of Bird names within WP:BIRD, based on normal practices within the field of ornithology is such an exception based on common sense. -- Kim van der Linde 17:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for multiple reasons articulated above and elsewhere in detail. The summary: The "rules for bird capitalization" have never been established by WP-wide consensus, only tightly controlled by a small cadre of editors at one project despite continual objection by editors from everywhere else on the system, in a blatant violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, and in conflict with virtually all other usage, site-wide (except inasmuch as noobs have gone on a recent, disturbing trend to capitalize all animal names using birds as a model). A number of strong arguments exist against the idea of basing stylistic practice in a general purpose, general readership encyclopedia on conventions used (not even consistently) within certain specialist publications. The above rancorous debate, and the incontrovertible evidence gathered (so far - there's a lot more not catalogued yet) at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names of widespread and continual objection to WP:BIRDS's preference, is clear proof there is no consensus for such a change to the MOS. Frankly, the idea that capitalization of common names of birds isn't controversial on Misplaced Pages is totally absurd. And there is an obvious consensus, on and off Wikiepdia, against the notion that common names are proper nouns. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. Looks like the controversial changes were made in the past days despite that the ongoing discussion here has not been resolved. I reverted those per WP:BRD.-- Kim van der Linde

It would be a good idea to have a better example than Bald Eagle, and add a footnote or parenthetical with an explanation such as, "Because it distinguishes a taxonomic species from a general description of a bird. Several species of sparrows could be described as "white-throated sparrows," but a "White-throated Sparrow" is a particular taxonomic species." Otherwise, this will just keep coming up perennially. Selery (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's instruction creep, though, for no real gain. Virtually no one but most ornithologists (and maybe some botanists?) would recognize such capitalization as an attempt to disambiguate (i.e., it does not actually distinguish anything from anything else, other than for the tiny fraction of a percentage point of readers/editors who would already know what was meant anyway.) The proper way to distinguish in a case like that is with simple, clear prose, the same way we make any other kind of potentially confusig construction sensible without resorting to throwing grammar rules out the window. E.g. "The white-throated sparrow species is not to be confused with other sparrows with white throats." No grammar-defying, confusing, inconsistent, illiterate-looking, editwar-generating, strife-perpetuating capitalization scheme needed. I'm hardly the first to point this out (I think that was in 2004. Logic, the core of the English language, and the fact that our readership is general have not changed since then.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Instruction creep works both ways. For those who believe there are good reasons to capitalize common names, there's no reason for Misplaced Pages to forbid it and it's instruction creep to do so.

It's utterly unhelpful to use language like grammar-defying, confusing, inconsistent, illiterate-looking, editwar-generating, strife-perpetuating; it certainly doesn't help to build a consensus in favour of your position. Both "sides" need to accept the logic of each other's positions; there are rational arguments both ways.

"Grammar-defying" is factually wrong. As Noetica has made clear, capitalization rules are logically independent of the grammatical function of the word or phrase being capitalized. Capitalization styles have changed over time; American English has on the whole gone further than, say, British English in removing capitals from words which once had them, although British Engish is fast catching up. No change in grammar has accompanied the change in capitalization. This argument should not be used either way. "Confusing" works both ways; although very careful wording can reduce confusion, there are situations in which e.g. "green woodpecker" is ambiguous. "Inconsistency" should be an issue we can all agree on; at the very least an article should be internally consistent. "Illiterate-looking" is a subjective judgement. Because all the half-dozen or so UK Floras and handbooks I regularly use capitalize the common names of flowers, it looks wrong to me to see such names not in capitals and I instinctively want to correct them. If I add them uncapitalized to an article to ensure consistency, it jars on me. However, this seems to me to be no different than ENGVAR issues: some American spellings look very wrong to me but I always respect them to ensure consistency within an article. "Editwar-generating" and "strife-perpetuating" seem to me, as a relative newcomer to this issue, to be faults largely on the side of those who want to enforce a common style for all organisms and all articles. The current round wasn't started by those who prefer capitals and your language above is hardly designed to contribute to a rational debate.

I really don't understand why this can't be treated in the same way as ENGVAR. Articles should be self-consistent as regards the capitalization of common names. It will annoy some people to see variations between articles in such capitalization, just as variations between articles in spelling annoy some people, but this is a price to be paid for an international collaborative encyclopaedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR is important because it's infeasible and undesirable (for numerous reasons) to write Misplaced Pages in one English variety.

Many other forms of inter-article consistency are feasible and desirable. Otherwise, we'd deem most of the MoS "instruction creep" and replace it with the advice "just use whatever widespread conventions seem best to you and make articles internally consistent". —David Levy 11:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

On this I agree with you completely. Wherever there is consensus, consistency between articles is highly desirable and should be pursued. However, there are many areas of style and layout where Misplaced Pages is highly inconsistent when a tightly edited encyclopaedia wouldn't be (references/citations are a good example, as are sections in articles on very similar topics). I'm simply arguing that as there isn't consensus on the capitalization of common names at present (although this may change), we should treat the issue in the same way as ENGVAR, which means accepting the inevitable variation between articles but always ensuring consistency within articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You acknowledged above that "the default in Misplaced Pages is that common names of organisms are not capitalized" (with deviations constituting "exceptions").

And I've seen no evidence that a substantial degree of disagreement exists outside a handful of WikiProjects that favor a different approach or whose opinions are divided.

If we were to poll a random group of editors, I suspect that far more would express disagreement on such matters as sentence case vs. title case for headings and logical quotation vs. typesetters' quotation. General-interest publications actually vary in those respects, but we've nonetheless selected a single style in each case. Conversely, general-interest publications overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of organisms. —David Levy 13:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And the fact that "there are many areas of style and layout where Misplaced Pages is highly inconsistent" isn't a reason to create or tolerate more of them. That would be a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS fallacy. And, no, both sides do no need to accept that the other side has a logical argument when one of them clearly doesn't except maybe within specialist journals (and even specialists do not all concur). A very large number of editors over 7+ years have demonstrated that the logical underpinnings of capitalization of common names are shaky at best, and inconsistently applied. Proponents claim it should be done because they're proper nouns, but no one agrees, not even the organizations promoting the style in their journals, so they then say it's just an arbitrary convention, to which opponents reply WP doesn't obey narrow-field arbitrary conventions pushed against general usage, to which proponents reply that, well, really it's because they're proper nouns, and the entire debate cycle reboots. Peter, I'm sorry you're offended by my being honest that the WP:BIRDS style is strife-perpetuating, inconsistent, editwar-generating, etc., etc. I've already gathered evidence that backs up every single one of those descriptions with more than half a decade of archived evidence (i.e. multiple other editors independently raising principled and well-defended objections to the practice, in multiple forums, for every one of those reasons). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 21:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect, see here for an example of the claim of proper nouns: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/rules-caps.html Furthermore, this was also exactly how our science editor explained it. -- Kim van der Linde 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Ornithologist Jon S. Greenlaw thinks that common names should be considered proper nouns and he explains his position in this way: "we now have a single, unique name (see below) for each of the biological entities that we call bird species."

Is there any reason why I couldn't apply that same argument to specific types of furniture? To distinguish a ballpoint pen from any pen with a ball and a point?

Let's use Greenlaw's definition that a proper noun denotes a particular person, place or thing. Bird species names do not themselves denote particular bald eagles or particular starlings. In contrast, "the Great Lakes" denotes a particular set of lakes. We could replace one bald eagle with another, and the term "bald eagle" would still apply, but we could not replace Lake Huron with Loch Ness and still get to call those six lakes "the Great Lakes."

Jon S. Greenlaw's area of expertise is animal ecology, not writing. General-audience style guides do not treat common names as proper nouns. The preponderance of sources still supports not treating common names as proper nouns. Do you have anything else that we could look at? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Great Lakes" denotes a particular set of lakes. The "Bald Eagle" denotes a particular set of birds, or to be more precise, eagles. Which individuals are included is precisely defined based on the description of the species that includes the circumscription of which individuals are and which are not included in the species. This is exactly the same as The Great Lakes. We are not talking about individuals, but about species, which is a particular entity. When we talk about the Bald Eagle, we talk about the species, while when we talk about a bald eagle, we talk about an eagle with a bald head (the Bald Eagl] has a feathered head), of unknwon species designation, but could be a Harpy Eagle of a Madagascar Fish Eagle. So, yes, species are particular entities with a well defined circumscription. -- Kim van der Linde 01:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And there's the rub. No one (at least here) has contended that capitalization of binomial species names should be other than that specified in the respective codes of nomenclature: Sophophora melanogaster is neither sophophora melanogaster nor Sophophora Melanogaster. Organizations of ornithologists in the US and evidently in some other English-speaking countries have created English-language equivalents for every bird species they consider. So the American Ornithological Union specifies that Mimus polyglottis and "Northern Mockingbird" refer to the same species. These bird names are emphatically not common names, no matter what their proponents say; they are English equivalents (note: not usually translations) of the Latin binomials. I personally think this is totally unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive, but it's not my call. They are names of species, arguably proper nouns, and even if not, their orthography warrants the same respect as that of binomials.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But "bald eagles/Bald Eagles" does not denote a specific set of eagles. It denotes a type of eagle. We could switch one bald eagle for another, and it would make no difference to whether or not the word should be capitalized. The Great Lakes are six specific lakes. Switch out one individual and they are not the Great Lakes any more.

The difference here is that with binomial nomenclature, specialist and generalist guides say the same thing. The Journal of Biological Chemistry capitalizes genus and uses lowercase for species, and Chicago and the rest of the general-audience style guides agree. Here, in ornithology, there is a disagreement between specialist and generalist guidance. And Misplaced Pages is a generalist publication, so why should it use specialist style? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Proponents of the WP:BIRD-endorsed style are using "reliable sources" to mean "specialist sources". Misplaced Pages isn't a specialist publication, so where specialist usage differs from general usage, we usually look to the latter. Where no consistent general usage exists (e.g. "sulfur"/"sulphur" or "paracetamol"/"acetaminophen"), we might look to specialist usage as a tie-breaker of sorts. (All else being equal, it's as good a way as any to prevent pointless bickering.) This is very different from overruling consistent general usage. —David Levy 06:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Great Lakes" denotes a particular set of lakes. The "Bald Eagle" denotes a particular set of birds, or to be more precise, eagles. Which individuals are included is precisely defined based on the description of the species that includes the circumscription of which individuals are and which are not included in the species.

"Plumber" denotes a particular set of people, or to be more precise, tradespeople. Which individuals are included is precisely defined based on the description of the vocation that includes the circumscription of which skills are and which are not included in it.

When we talk about the Bald Eagle, we talk about the species, while when we talk about a bald eagle, we talk about an eagle with a bald head (the Bald Eagl] has a feathered head), of unknwon species designation, but could be a Harpy Eagle of a Madagascar Fish Eagle.

When we talk about the Sink Wrench, we talk about the specific type of wrench, while when we talk about a sink wrench, we talk about a wrench of unknown type, which happens to be used on sinks. That's why "Sink Wrench" is a proper noun, right? —David Levy 06:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of original research that we are supposed to avoid by relying on reliable sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And reliable sources, apart from some specialist publications, overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of organisms.

The above "original research" illustrates the absurdity of defining English grammar rules solely on the word of specialists in areas other than English, be they ornithology specialists or hypothetical plumbing specialists. (Of course, almost no ornithologists actually assert that common names of birds are proper nouns, nor is this the explanation provided at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles.)

As a non-specialist encyclopedia, on matters of style, we should (and almost always do) look to reliable non-specialist sources and the style guides to which they adhere. —David Levy 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ornithological reliable sources say that uppercase should be used. Now, if you want to write about a field you want to use the best sources available (i.e. the specialists sources) not generalist sources. Misplaced Pages is not a print encyclopedia with a single editor, and it can choose to follow field-specific guidelines in order to reflect better the best sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The best sources for facts might not also be the best sources for expression and language. I work as a proofreader of life science journal articles, and the fact that they come to me full of misplaced commas and miscapitalized words does not make their conclusions any more or less accurate. If I were writing an article on E. coli, I'd want to use microbiology journals and newspaper articles and style guides. Then I would know both what to say and how best to say it for a general audience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than repeating myself, Enric, I ask that you please read my earlier reply to you, timestamped "17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)". —David Levy 20:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I keep seeing the claim that "only ornithologists" follow the convention of capitalizing bird names. As an editor of an American Birding Association publication, I can tell you that the tens if not hundreds of thousands of birders in North America would disagree. The ABA's convention, as is the convention of every field guide I've ever seen, is to capitalize bird names. The ABA is not an organization of ornithologists: it is an organization of amateur birders and birdwatchers. Furthermore, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Proper_noun#Capitonym_or_specific_designator.3F for an explanation of why bird names are correctly capitalized. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is drawing the distinction to which you refer. It's self-evident that many (if not most) amateur birders prefer the uppercase convention (hence the recommendation by WikiProject Birds).

But Misplaced Pages isn't a bird publication; it's an encyclopedia written for a general audience. Generalist publications (i.e. those not written by/for bird enthusiasts) overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of birds.

You're responding to a thread in which someone asserted that common names of birds are proper nouns because "organizations of ornithologists" have so declared. In fact, few ornithologists make any such claim (and even if they did, they aren't grammarians). That persons knowledgeable on the subject of birds use the convention to distinguish between names of species and general descriptions is undisputed, but that doesn't transform a common noun into a proper one. —David Levy 19:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Natureguy—why do you link to the section on capitonyms? Can you elaborate? But please be careful that you don't unwittingly make a case for capitalizing, for example, the second instance of the word starling in the sentence "The Common Starling is a kind of starling." unless of course that is your intention. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Erik. Here is the definition: "A capitonym is a word that changes its meaning (and sometimes pronunciation) when it is capitalized." Bird names are a prime example of this. Blue Jay and blue mean different things. The former is a specific species. The latter is not. Something else to mention: the editors I know in the bird periodcial business, and who have high-education English language backgrounds, do indeed consider species names as proper nouns, just as Great Lakes is a proper noun. We've had this discussion amongst ourselves previously. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the IOC, which is Misplaced Pages's avian English-language name authority, has included on its webpage: "the strongest argument for capitalizing the English names of birds is that we now have a single, unique name (see below) for each of the biological entities that we call bird species. These names must be regarded as proper nouns (thus receive capitals in all English publications), rather than as common nouns (vernacular names). My unabridged dictionary defines a "proper noun" as (1) a word that is not necessarily preceded by an article (e.g., "the," "a") and (2) denotes a particular person, place, or thing." At http://www.worldbirdnames.org/rules-caps.html Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As discussed above and at Talk:Proper noun, you're quoting a single ornithologist's opinion of what should occur. The concept of English names of birds " capitals in all English publications" in no way reflects reality. —David Levy 21:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah; I thought you were trying to make an argument for why it was correct, since you said "for an explanation of why bird names are correctly capitalized"—I misunderstood. You were simply explaining one of the style's benefits. Got it! With respect to the Greenlaw quote, again, for such a stunning notion of what constitutes a proper name it would be best to have a more authoritative source—someone with relevant credentials, hopefully. Greenlaw even messes up simple things here like calling them proper nouns. I get where he's coming from, but this simply isn't credible evidence for this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Middle-Eastern cuisine??

An editor recently moved Middle Eastern cuisine to Middle-Eastern cuisine based on his reading of the MOS. I read the relevant section of the MOS, and sure enough, it appears to encourage the use of a hyphen here. This seems wrong. A Google search for "Middle Eastern cuisine" finds only 3 snippets out of the first 100 search results that use a hyphen. Surely we aren't going to start writing "South-Asian climate", "East-Asian politics", etc.? I am not quite sure how to formulate this case -- perhaps other editors can help -- but I'm pretty confident that the hyphen is not idiomatic here, and the MOS should be edited to reflect that. --Macrakis (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Google counts are needlessly difficult and aren't reliable for things like this, although a real corpus search gives similar results this time. Good free corpora that can handle punctuation are COCA, the Corpus of Contemporary American English...

Middle Eastern: 2066

Middle-Eastern: 24

...and the British National Corpus:

Middle Eastern: 163

Middle-Eastern: 0

I don't know any ways to do comparable searches for any other countries. However, I think this shows that standard usage doesn't call for a hyphen, and I see no advantage in clarity, so I agree in thinking the MOS should call for not using the hyphen. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And after all that, I don't see where the MOS says anything about "Middle Eastern" and related compounds one way or the other. Can you point me to the spot? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Presumably User:Ich interpreted Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Hyphens, section 3 "compound modifiers" bullets 1 and 2, as encouraging the use of a hyphen in Middle-Eastern cuisine, as in government-monitoring program -- that is, it is the cuisine of the Middle East, rather than the middle part of Eastern cuisine. --Macrakis (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The way I was taught, that rule is never applied to insert a hyphen into a proper-name-based compound. So I added that to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Hyphens; we'll see if it sticks. Noetica will probably come up with a more learned alternative... Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That addition is perfectly sound and useful, Dick:

However, hyphens are never inserted into proper-name-based compounds (Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine).

The proper name in question is the Middle East. Compare the United States delegate, a Leonard Cohen fan, University of Sydney graduates.

The text was already flexible ("A hyphen can help to disambiguate ..."); and it concludes with this general observation: "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; the rules and examples presented above illustrate the broad principles that inform current usage." We do need to consider the whole WP:HYPHEN section systematically some time, now that WP:DASH is sorted out. There are similar well-established exceptions to cover, like carbon monoxide concentration. It's pretty good right now though; and we will never be able to include everything.

Noetica 06:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, "I'm a Leonard-Cohen fan" really makes it clear that one doesn't do that. Unless the modifier was compounded before it became a modifier no hyphen. E.g.: "Some people call it the Middle East, others the Mid-East, so Middle Eastern food can also be called Mid-Eastern food." — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Macrakis, for answering my question. I guess I just never thought of "Middle Eastern cuisine" as being in any way connected to "government-monitoring program", but I can see it now.

As Noetica pointed out in another context, the key point is that the elements that would be linked by a hyphen are capitalized, not that they're based on a proper name. Thus "French-style" and "Academy Award-winning" need hyphens. So I suggest, "If a compound is capitalized, showing that its elements belong together, a hyphen is never inserted (Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine).

I dislike "Academy Award-winning" and wish we could require "Academy-Award–winning", or just avoid this journalistic formation, but neither of those is going to happen. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As you say, Noetica, a comprehensive guide to hyphenation would be a huge job. However, maybe there can be a consensus on adding one rule:

"All compounds in which the second element is a past participle and the first is an adjective or a noun are hyphenated (left-handed, four-legged, science-based, God-forsaken)." The current rule mentions this only as hyphenation in bird names (of all things). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That alone is reason enough to make the change. >;-) I cannot begin to express how tired I am of that one project trying to influence everything on the system to favor its styles. But, seriously, that does make sense. It might be a bit too language-geeky, as worded (I have a linguistics background so I understood it, but many wouldn't, and even I had to concentrate to parse it). And the point about "Middle Eastern" is worth adding too. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As a member of WP:BIRDS, I'm glad you weren't serious. :-) Anyway, if others agree on adding this rule, I'd certainly be happier with an easier-to-understand (there's another rule!) version. How about "All compounds whose second element is a past participle are hyphenated . There is an exception: if the first element is an -ly adverb, the rule above applies and the compound is not hyphenated"? Or maybe someone else can come with a good version. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Or "Hyphenate compound modifiers in which the second part is a past participle and the first part does not end in -ly."? No, that won't work; still needs an exception for certain sly-mannered fellows. Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the strange prevalence of bird-fanciers' predilections, bless 'em. But I point out that WP:HYPHEN, though it has historically been the scene of many battles, is well-considered and stable, accords with best practice in publishing as set out in style guides, and in some respects does a far more rigorous and precise job than any of the major guides. I suggest leaving WP:HYPHEN alone for now – at least while other matters are the subject of spirited debate. Even Dick's valuable addition is one that was reverted (um, by me) when the climate was more volatile just after the achievements of the Great Dashfest of 2011. Note: the mention of a proper-name-based exception hints that there are no other similar exceptions; but there are some, as I have pointed out. Let's take our time.

Noetica 01:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that during a time of other spirited debates, adding a rule on hyphenation and revising another one are too likely to lead to acrimony? Or that people are spending their time on the other debates and won't be able to comment on this one? Or both, or something else? Anyway, if this isn't a good time, I'd hope to be able to participate when a good time comes up. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Both, and perhaps something else. The provisions at WP:HYPHEN are finely tuned, the outcome of considerable research and much prolonged wrangling back in the darker days of MOS. The provisions at WP:DASH (similar, and necessarily intertwined with WP:HYPHEN) took months of work under ArbCom supervision to get to their present consensual state. They are a superbly nuanced and accurate reflection of principles used in current publishing, selected and adapted for Misplaced Pages's unique environment. Both guidelines would need to be considered, when WP:HYPHEN comes up for review. So would WP:SLASH, and perhaps one or two others. At the best of times this is a delicate and complex undertaking; and now is not even the best of times.

I hope we can get to all that when the bird issues are more settled. People will do what they like, when they like. I simply make a recommendation; and I reserve the option of responding conservatively if changes to this especially sensitive area are made insensitively. I do hope you will participate when hyphens come up for systematic treatment.

Noetica 23:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

British style for abbreviations formed by compression not truncation

I don't think that the statements in the Abbreviations section are quite correct regarding British usage: British and some other authorities prefer to drop the period from truncated and compressed abbreviations generally. The most common British usage in my experience is to drop the full stop from compressed abbreviations, thus Dr, Mrs, Ltd but not from truncated abbreviations, thus Hon., op. cit.. See, e.g., the advice here (search for "British usage"). This is certainly the style that I would automatically use. The rationale is that the full stop replaces omitted material. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. As currently written, the guideline (AFAICT) forbids to use Dr and Hon. in the same article, which (AFAICT) is by far the most common convention in BrE. IIRC some people even use St for Saint but St. for Street. ― A. di M.​  13:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 21:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Oxford Guide to Style has:

"Traditionally, abbreviations were supposed to end in full points while contractions did not . . . Handy though this rule is, common usage does not bear it out: both ed. (for editor or edited by) and edn. (for edition) end in a point. Street is St. with a point to avoid confusion wit St for Saint. . . . Specific rulings may be found in the individual entries in the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors . . .. "

So it is not just individuals, but at least (presumably) all followers of Oxford style. --Boson (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It warms my heart to see such things discussed, especially when major sources are quoted.

The quotation from OGS (2002; an update of the classic Hart's Rules) either is very slightly inaccurate or shows a difference from the version in The Oxford Style Manual (OSM; 2003), which purports merely to reprint OGS unchanged as the first of its two parts (the second part being a reprint of the most recent ODWE, 2000). Here is the corresponding excerpt from OSM, with variations and material omitted above underlined, and with bold for comparison with a later version that I will cite further down:

Traditionally, abbreviations were supposed to end in full points while contractions did not, giving both Jun. and Jr for Junior, and Rev. and Revd for Reverend. Handy though this rule is, common usage increasingly does not bear it out: both ed. (for editor or edited by) and edn. (for edition) end in a point; Street is St. with a point to avoid confusion with St for Saint. Further, US English tends to use punctuation more than British English (U.S.A. rather than USA), and non-technical English in either country uses more punctuation than technical English (ml. rather than ml). This means it is difficult to predict with confidence the punctuation following abbreviations, though acronyms and symbols tend to be subject to greater standardization across borders and disciplines. Specific rulings may be found in the individual entries in the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors;  (OSM, 2003, pp. 63–64)

Note the qualification "increasingly"; and note the context provided by the material earlier left out. Beyond that, let's check entries in the included version of ODWE (2003) relevant to the excerpt, along with the current edition of ODWE (2005). I summarise:

2003: Jr., jun.; not jnr., jr., junr.
2005: Jr. "chiefly N. Amer. junior (no point usual in British style)"  Jun., Jnr

2003: Revd, pl. Revds; not Rev. (US)
2005: Rev. or Brit. Revd

2003: ed.; pl. eds. (preferred) or edd.; edn. pl. edns.
2005: ed.; pl. eds or eds.; ed. or edn

There are interesting inconsistencies and changes for use of the period. (Note other variations too, including in capitalisation.)

Now, OGS (2002) was in fact frankly updated as New Hart's Rules (NHR; 2005; same year as the current ODWE). This is the core of the Oxford suite of style resources; it simplifies and shortens some provisions, though OGS (along with ODWE which includes it) is valuable for expansions where NHR is a little too brisk. Still, sometimes the wording in NHR represents a genuine alteration of intent. Note the underlined departures from the wording cited from ODWE above, and bold for comparison on two key points:

Traditionally, abbreviations end in full points while contractions do not, so that we have both Jun. and Jr for Junior, and Rev. and Revd for Reverend. This rule is handy and in general is borne out, although there are some exceptions: for example St. (= Street) is often written with a point to avoid confusion with St for Saint. (NHR, 2005, p. 169)

Well! And that continues with more subtle alteration of the line established in 2002, just three years earlier. Anyway, the Oxford resources generally do support the distinction that Peter Coxhead notes at the head of this section.

The similarly weighty Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) is more catholic, and as usual does not recommend any one of the four basic policies for punctuation of abbreviations that it very competently surveys (pp. 3–5). It does, however, speak favourably at some length of a fifth option, not much used in print but much used in "digital style on the internet": the omission of periods altogether, with all sorts of abbreviations. The text:

A fifth option, to use no stops in any kind of abbreviation, is not commonly seen on the printed page, but appears increasingly in digital style on the internet. It is easiest of all to implement, and would resolve the anomalies created by distinguishing contractions from abbreviations (options b, c (ii)). It would also break down the invisible barrier between abbreviations and symbols (section 1 above). Leaving all abbreviations unstopped is sometimes said to be a recipe for confusion between lower case abbreviations and ordinary words. Yet there are very few which could be mistaken. Those which are identical, such as am, fig and no are normally accompanied by numbers: 10 am, fig 13, no 2, and there's no doubt as to what they are. The idea of leaving abbreviations totally without stops may seem too radical for the moment, but it would streamline the anomalies and divergences outlined in this entry. (CGEU, 2004, p. 4)

(Even the major American guide CMOS16, remember, is now against "U.S." and in favour of the simpler "US".)

The current wording on our page includes this: "British and some other authorities prefer to drop the period from truncated and compressed abbreviations generally (XYZ Corp; ABC Ltd), a practice favored in science writing." True, and a step toward the bold Cambridge suggestion that makes a great deal of sense for Misplaced Pages, whose Manual of Style follows reliable style resources through careful surveys and analysis (and general best practice in publishing), but must also adapt to the unique condition of international collaborative editing by volunteers.

I suggest that there be no change to the present wording for abbreviations on the page. The guidance is stable and sound; it can be adjusted later if there is consensus to do that; but just now several other issues take priority in discussion on this talkpage.

Noetica 01:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dammit. You know what this means? I have to spend another $50+ on nearly identical books to round out my style guide collection. I took them at their word that the text was identical between the stand-alone and combined Oxford editions. Grrr... Re:CMOS and "U.S." – can we finally stop recommending that awful 19th-centuryism? Every time I see "U.S.", especially in articles with "UK", I picture US Civil War era woodcuts with big muttonchops and top hats. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You can relax about one point. Although current NHR and current ODWE are different from the content of OSM, I have checked and OSM does appear to represent the older OGS faithfully. The word increasingly is revealed as left out by mistake, in Boson's quote from it above. (Heh. I do that too.) NHR is essential for our work here though. (Not everyone needs to collect dictionaries style guides zealously like me; but I guess it's useful that some of us do.)

As for "US" supplanting "U.S.", I'm ready when you and a quorum of other interested editors are.

Noetica 09:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have NHR (2005), ODWE (2005) and OGS (2002) in their latest individual incarnations, it's safe to ditch OSM (2003), then? Or is the OGS included in ODWE (2005) the same as the last separate OGS (2002) and the version in OSM (2003), meaning one only needs current copies of NHR (2005) and ODWE (2005)? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 01:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Species capitalization points

In an effort to standardize and synchronize:

• WP:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms
• WP:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms
• WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms
• WP:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species
• and WP:Naming conventions (flora)#Scientific versus common names
• as well as derivative, non-guideline instructions like WP:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles, etc.

It is proposed that the following points be integrated (in whatever prose form) at all of these documents:

1. The default is to begin each word in common (vernacular) names with lower case
2. except were proper names appear in them (or the word begins a sentence or list item – obvious exceptions).
3. This applies to all common names (families, orders, subspecies, etc.) not just species: "vertebrates", "the snakes", "European wildcat", etc.
4. Some editors prefer / WP:WikiProject Birds prefers / It is common practice at WP:WikiProject Birds to capitalize all parts of bird common names, except those immediately after a hyphen, in ornithology articles;
5. this remains controversial (a.k.a. there is no site-wide consensus that this is an acceptable practice, a.k.a. this is not consistently regarded as correct) and should not be used / is not recommended outside such articles.
6. Only one capitalization style should be used in any given article.

Amended per discussion below so far, with markup like this comment. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe this represents actual Misplaced Pages-wide consensus. In order: Point #1 has been MOS consensus since at least 2008, and stably so. WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes at subordinate guidelines and at WikiProjects does not trump this. Point #2 is just obvious. Point #3 is just obvious. Point #4 gives bird editors some breathing room, and correctly puts this in the context that WP:BIRDS have themselves advanced, as being a project-defined standard for ornithology articles only.. Identifying these "some editors" as WP:WikiProject Birds by name in the guideline may seem "blamey", and the project (or WP:TOL, etc.) should not be cited as a guideline authority if mentioned, because it isn't one. No other active project has a written "guideline" that conflicts with the default, so no exception will be mentioned other than birds. Point #5 is incontrovertible; title case for species is consistently one of the most controversial and broadly opposed ideas on the entire wiki for 7 years running. Saying so explicitly is de rigeur for "hot button" issues in MOS, and most importantly defuses the already rampant and extremely problematic notion that we have a "well, plants and sloths and bacteria and whales can be capitalized too because a couple of editors like it" free-for-all, a problem that has been caused by vague and wishy-washy wording at some of the subguidelines which have been citing WP:BIRDS and WP:TOL pages and if they were guidelines, and dwelling upon projects that have a lack of local consensus, rather than applying the site-wide guidelines at MOS. The MOS has flatly rejected the "there is no consensus, projects can do whatever they want" idea in its explicit wording for over three years and in its talk archives every time the issue has come up since at least 2007. Point #6 is dictated by our general principle of consistent style within single articles, was first articulated with regard to this issue in particular in 2006, and it of course defaults to lower case (by the nature of what "default" means, and by WP:BIRDS's own statements that they're only concerned about usage in the context of ornithology). 22:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The MOS is for Style conventions, not to highlight conflicts. The idea that only SOME WP:BIRD editors are using Capitalized Bird Names is incorrect and is inserted just to weaken the strong case for Capitalization of Proper Nouns such as Standardized Bird Names. -- Kim van der Linde 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Then how about we replace "some editors" with something more neutral, like "The capitalization of common names is the prevailing practice in WP: Birds, but this remains controversial"? Because 1. it is and 2. it does. I would not give "this remains controversial" as a fifth point. It should be combined with point four and point six should become point five.

Also, I would replace "an article" with "any given article." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I can live with the change to WP:BIRDS, but the controversial remains a non-style statement, and has no place in the MOS. It would incidently be the only statement about something be controversial in the MOS. -- Kim van der Linde 01:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The "controversial" is the part that must remain. It's the most benign way of saying "these guys are doing something that is not consistently regarded as correct; don't use these articles as a model for others." It is a style statement in that we are telling people what they should and should not do, stylistically, on Misplaced Pages. EDIT: Come to think of it, I could live with "but this is not consistently regarded as correct and not recommended for articles outside WP:Birds." That makes it a bit clearer that the MoS is providing instructions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. However its worded, the controversial/not agreed bit is completely crucial. The two main reasons to do all this at all have nothing to do with birds, but with stopping the proliferation of rampant capitalization of every mention of animals, and to get rid of the conflicting subguideline language that encourages projects to go off into left field and make up more exceptions. It's also normal in guidelines to use such "controversy" disclaimers, despite KvdL's unhappiness with it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Darkfrog24: Actually I have an issue with "and not recommended for articles outside" the scope of the project, as it implies that the practice is recommended by MOS not just by WP:BIRDS for bird articles, with has actually been disputed for 7 years running. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Exception by itself says already that WP:BIRD is doing something different. There is no need to highlight that it is controversial/incorrect/etc. as a kick in the ass towards WP:BIRD as if they do something wrong. Because despite how often generic style purists want to make us believe that it is wrong, we are following the general convention for ornithology based publications. Why not state: "It is common practice at WP:WikiProject Birds to capitalize all parts of bird common names, except those immediately after a hyphen, in ornithology articles consistent with the consensus in the ornithology literature." This covers that it is an exception, and that it is based on what reliable literature in that field says about the usage, so it is up to other groups to show common usage of that field as well. -- Kim van der Linde 12:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT an "ornithology based publication", QED. And it's not a consensus in ornithology lit, it's just a "growing trend" according to WP:BIRDS itself the last time this came up. And, frankly, WP:BIRDS is doing something wrong, in violating WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy to force all editors in a general encyclopedia for a general audience to use, against years of concerted protest, an ungrammatical style that was designed as a specialist convention by a specialist organization for use by specialists in specialist publications. There really is no away around these problems, no rug to sweep them under. The fact that MOS is entertaining mentioning, instead of ignoring, WP:BIRDS at all is a tremendous show of good faith that you've been spurning. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The points above don't say "exception" and I don't feel they should. That would imply that everyone got together and agreed that WP: Birds should use capitals in contrast to the rest of Misplaced Pages, when the truth of the matter is that it's a dispute that's never been settled. That's why terms like "controversial" or "not consistently regarded as correct" would be best.

Considering that the overwhelming majority of English-language style guides state or imply that capitalizing common names is incorrect, then stating "but this is not consistently regarded as correct" is actually treating your position very favorably. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources dealing with any of the 10,000 plus bird species uses capitalization as the preferred style, this is not controversial. It is controversial to force lower caps on bird names contrary normal usage. -- Kim van der Linde 15:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless the Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA handbook, various Oxford and Cambridge style publications, etc. are unreliable, then no, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources does not support capitalization. A source does not have to be specific to ornithology to be suitable for use within WP:Birds. If I'm writing an article about E. coli, then I will use sources such as microbiology journals and newspaper articles and style guides. For a general-audience publication like Misplaced Pages, lowercase for common names is "normal usage." If writing a guideline that stipulates something that isn't normal usage is controversial, then it is appropriate to use the term "this is controversial" in point five above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Kim, it doesn't say "some WP:BIRDS editors" it says "some editors", i.e. WP:BIRDS. Please re-think what you've said above. (Aside: As a matter of fact, I've already found several cases, in my gathering index of relevant archives, of WP:BIRDS members not agreeing with the capitalization, but that's really not important to the question at hand.) Also, the MOS has quite frequently contained "it's controversial" or "it doesn't have consensus" statements when they were pertinent, and various guidelines still (and always) do at any given time. E.g. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles: "There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece", as just one example. It's quite routine, really.— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Here's more: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/France & French-related: "Present English usage itself varies on how to spell such French forms and there is currently no consensus among editors on the issue...." Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles: "...decided to leave the article on the island at Ireland and the article on the Irish state at Republic of Ireland until consensus changes." And so on. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good, than you can have your exception added to the subpage called Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Animals, plants, and other organisms. I do not find any exceptions in the main MOS, or do you intent to add all those other exceptions as well to the main MOS article under the guise of synching? -- Kim van der Linde 12:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be delighted to have the main MOS simply mention the default and never mention birds at all. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 14:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you agree that you do not want your controversy exception mentioned at MOS. I think it bis a wise decision to keep mentiones of what is controversial to subpages and describe the current usage at the MOS, which includes that WP:BIRD articles are all using capitalized names. -- Kim van der Linde 15:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You did not read me correctly. I said I'd be happy with not mentioning birds at all on MOS proper, since what WP:BIRDS wants with regard to them is controversial; it would be fine by me to relegate all of that to a subpage, including that it is controversial. (I think you mean Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms.) The fact that it's controversial must appear where ever any of the guidelines mention the birds "rule", because it is causing massive confusion and chaos all over Misplaced Pages as everyone capitalizes just about anything that ever mentions animals, following the birds example. I.e., no, you do not have agreement to pretend that WP:BIRDS's capitalization isn't controversial. We don't have to use the world "controversial"; there a whole thread below about what wording to use. PS: The fact that most bird articles use capitalized names is a fait accompli pulled off by your project's editwarring on the matter over seven years of frequent objections. That fact that you weren't collectively subject to a WP:ARBCOM case about it is actually pretty surprising, given that the ArbCom has previously condemned fait accompli attempts to force controversial consistencies across large number of articles. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "controversial" and "doesn't have consensus". "Controversy" is generally a "boo word"; the implication of saying that it's "controversial" is that it shouldn't be. "Doesn't have consensus" is a neutral statement. Further, in the cases you refer to where there isn't consensus, the result is that different editors can freely continue to use different wordings. This doesn't seem to be what you are trying to achieve. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an inference, not an implication. I think "doesn't have consensus" sounds (on Misplaced Pages) worse. I'm happy to use that language, if it satisfies you, though. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 14:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

“Proper nouns” ? What proper nouns ? In emperor penguin or whatever blue-hearted tweeter bird name, there is not the slightest shadow of a proper noun !

--Nnemo (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support with minor changes: I would replace "Some editors ... controversial" with "It is common practice in WP:Birds to capitalize the common names of bird species, but this is controversial OR not consistently regarded as correct and should not be used outside WP:Birds." I would repace "an" with "any given." Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly OR, and no more than one of "controversial" and "not consistently regarded as correct" is needed, if either is. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh—I assumed darkfrog meant the conjunction or, not WP:OR. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh. That IS amusing—at my expense. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"You know you've been editing Misplaced Pages too long when..." FWIW, I initially parsed that as "original research" too. Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed what I meant. As long as people are tipped off that the capitalization of common names is controversial/not to be copied elsewhere in some reasonable way, then the guideline will serve. Also, let's note that if "this is controversial" appears as its own bullet point, it might look like it's referring to the entire list rather than just WP:BIRDS. 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

See clarification point below: These are meant as talking about, not actual guideline text. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 14:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's important to maintain the distinction that even WP:BIRDS only says to apply their "standard" to ornithology articles. Also, while I don't feel all that strongly about it, the point of the "some editors" language is that we regularly use phrasing like that in guidelines as a way of saying "the WikiProject on this topic" without a) appearing to "blame" or cast aspersions on the project by name or its participants or b) appearing to elevate the project by name as some entity empowered to create guidelines. Both of these are valid concerns, though I don't necessarily assert they're so important they must be accomodated. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support—I don't feel strongly either way about the "this remains controversial" part. It's probably fine to include it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Clarification: These 6 points aren't meant to be the exact wording (which might need to differ a bit between the various guidelines, e.g. being more explanatory at WP:CAPS than the conciser version at WP:MOS), but rather key points that must be made one way or another regardless of the prose. I.e. the wording as of my last edit to the actual MOS page is an attempt to work all 6 points into clear language without resorting to either super-choppy bullets or buckets of prose. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I've updated the wording with <ins>...</ins> markup to reflect so wording alternatives. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Partly oppose My objection is that the MOS wording here is inaccurate and hence POV-pushing. It falsely implies that only within WP:BIRDS is there any use of or support for capitalized common names. Plant editors have agreed to differ, and create and edit articles using either style. Moth articles seem largely to use capitals, which appears to be the norm within lepidopterists (see as just one example the list at Geometer moth – I've linked to the current version as it may get changed by those opposed to capitals in common names now I've pointed it out). If what is currently written in the MOS had appeared in an article it would not be acceptable as WP:NPOV; it would be clear that it had omitted a significant (albeit minority) alternative point of view. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

How about "there is also some support for this in WP:Plants, etc."? As long as we don't have common name capitalization introduced to other articles under the assumption that it is required or supported everywhere. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, no, this has already been addressed several times. WP:PLANTS never came to a consensus. We cannot possibly include any kind of list of "projects that do not have a consensus on this" because that would be a list of almost every project on the system. The entire point of MOS is that it sets site-wide defaults. And the entire point of the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy is to put a stop to the notion of random WikiProjects making up their own micro-consensuses on every topic under the sun because this leads to an unmanageable and embarrassing level of inconsistency. And the entire point of this synchronization effort is to provide actual guidance that matches the usage of almost every publication in the world: sentence case for common names. "Omitting significant minority points of view" on style matters from the actual practice of writing Misplaced Pages is what MOS exists for. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 14:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think, one way or another, this needs to be settled. It's pointless to have a wishy-washy "some editors prefer this, some prefer that" as the only existing standard. The guidance should say clearly which common names are capitalized and which are not; otherwise it's failing to do its job. I support the proposal, except that we should sepcify all the categories (including "birds", "moths", whatever) for which the established practice is to use all-caps. Then any proposal to add or subtract any category to that list will require consensus. Style guidance shouldn't concern itself with describing mixtures of editors' points of view. If there's some area where established practice is not clear, then we need to establish one, one way or another (by a run-off vote, if necessary). Surely we can all see that having a consistent (or at least, a fully defined) approach is better than having the issue permanently up in the air.--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus for insects, either. Again, we cannot go around making random exceptions. The majority of editors that have ever commented on the matter oppose even making an exception for birds. Adding more exceptions on the basis that misc. editors here and there have their own capitalization preferences based on what a few journals do is an invitation to disaster, since it would set a precedent for allow any and all exceptions to the MOS based on what a handful of sources do as long as they are reliable sources for facts and have nothing to do with grammar. Having a "fully-defined" approach that permits a scattershot of miscellaneous exceptions for which there is not even consensus in the relevant projects would actually be worse than having no guidance, because it would effectively enshrine the idea that there isn't really a guideline, and everyone can do what they want. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to work out how having full guidance would enshrine the idea that there is no guidance, more so than actually having no guidance would do... Look, it's a perfectly simple question - do we capitalize bird species names or not? RfC, discussion to identify the arguments on both sides, followed by poll. Result. Implement. Stop arguing about it. Same (in parallel) for moths, plants or any other category for which there is some genuine dispute about what the established practice is. --Kotniski (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The short answer: It's not a perfectly simple question, but a complex question and answer chain: Do we capitalize species names? No. Are there any exceptions: No, not according to general consensus; however one wikiproject insists on one and will argue everyone straight to the grave about it, and we're all tired of the fight, but site-wide consensus does not recommend the exception they demand, and all evidence says most editors and readers utterly hate it. Meanwhile a few other projects note various trends in their professional literature but hardly anyone thinks that has a thing to do with what Misplaced Pages should recommend in MOS, and they do not demand recognition of some kind of codified rule they've borrowed from a taxonomy organization, which the birds projects does. The longer answer: If MOS sets a default and notes that a controversy about that default's application in bird articles is still ongoing, that's not a big deal. We make note of such controversies and move on around them all the time. If MOS instead mentions an alleged default but then says not only do we do something different for birds (implies consensus that doesn't exist), misc. editors, some in projects some not, are uncertain about this and that and the other, and we just leave it up to editorial discretion, or project discretion or whatever, based on whatever random reasons people come up with... then we are not in fact setting any kind of default at all, not to mention we'd be effectively saying "ignore WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy".

It would be a major step backward. The default has been a default here in MOS without controversy since at least 2008, and all discussions here about animal caps have been increasingly not decreasingly in favor of lower case. The default isn't new. The other aspect of this is that uncertainty about what actual established practice is in science journals in a few areas besides birds (aside from being arguably irrelevant because WP does what generalist publications do, and cannot possibly account for every geeky practice in every field-specific specialist journal without utter chaos) has been unresolved for over 7 years, so we've simply moved on. It's entirely reasonable and normal to say "the MOS default applies there, too". Why would it not? I cannot think of any other area within MOS's scope where we decline to apply a general rule, like capitalizing place names, in one narrow field, like place names in Madagascar, just because some passel of editors on a talk page at a relevant project can't make up their minds locally whether the rule should apply there. Active, organized opposition by one project is dissimilar to noncommittal failure by another to decide whether something matters and what to do about it if anything.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• In terms of what this proposal is, it is not meaningfully different from the previous one. It firmly establishes that sentence case is default (that title case is only for birds?), I assume under the assumption that there is a preexisting consensus. Then it flags WikiProject Birds as controversial, if not wrong. The rest is uncontroversial. Title case is (practically) never used for groups of organisms—for taxa above species rank. —innotata 16:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Scott McCandlish's broad principles make sense. But let's not make an exception for the birds. There may be a de facto exception in place presently — and things can change —, but let's not write in the guidelines an exception to the standard English rules.

And certainly no exception-in-exception in case of hyphen ! Instead of yellow-eyed penguin, I tolerate Yellow-Eyed Penguin, because I like animals. But Yellow-eyed Penguin is ugly, it is asymmetrical, inconsistent, it just shows a quite frequent illiterate habit in English.

Ah, those birdwatchers !

--Nnemo (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's find an inoffensive way to state that capitalized common names are controversial

The points in the main section outline the status quo: Lowercase common names for most of Misplaced Pages and capitalized common names for WP:Birds and those few other projects for which it has become the main practice. The purpose of these points is not to change the guideline but rather to make sure that all pages that discuss this matter say the same thing. The main block seems to be that the MoS regulars feel that the guideline should include some text stating that the consensus for capitalized common names exists on the Wikiproject level and not on the Misplaced Pages level. The purpose of such text would be to discourage other editors from using capitalized common names in projects for which that is not the status quo. The ornithologists feel that the guideline should not include anything insulting, "a kick in the face," as KimvdLinde put it. I'm confident that if we put our heads together, we can find a way of saying what we need to say without making anyone feel wronged. Please add to the list of suggestions below and place all comments at the bottom. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"It is common/prevailing practice in WP:Birds (and WP:X, WP:Y...) to capitalize common names, but...

• ...this is controversial.
• ...this is not consistently regarded as correct.
• ...this is perennially disputed.
• ...this does not have Misplaced Pages-widelevel consensus.
• ...this contradicts the advice of general-English style guides.
• ...the propriety of this practice on Misplaced Pages is questioned.
• ...this practice is not fully endorsed by the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style.

• Also among our options: "and is not recommended for Wikiprojects for which it is not already the status quo."
• Also among our options: "The use of capital letters for the common names of bird species is tolerated in WP:Birds but not recommended."

What about:

• WP:BIRDS follows the consensus in the ornithology literature to capitalize common names of birds.

This says it what the exception is and why. It also makes clear that it is based on prevailing usage within the literature and not just a random choice made by the editors. -- Kim van der Linde 15:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not my favorite, but I could live with it so long as we added something to the effect of "but the use of this practice on Misplaced Pages is controversial/disputed/questioned/etc." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So, basically, just add to the MOS that the bird editors are stupid/whatever for following the prevailing usage in the relevant literature for birds? -- Kim van der Linde 15:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We absolutely should not say that bird editors are stupid. That is the point of this thread. We need to find a way to say "capitalizing common names is disputed" without saying or implying that anyone involved in the debate is stupid. How would you say "this is controversial" if you didn't mean to imply "X is stupid"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not controversial at all in bird literature. And article need to be based on the relevant literature. And that there are generic style guides who do not discuss the the situation about birds, then they are not a reliable source for birds, because the common names for the majority of species has never been standardized unlike birds. So yes, of course general style guides will discuss the general rule. In many cases, I am pretty sdure they have not even bothered to actually check some resources about birds to see there is a exception going on. So no, general style guides are NOT a reliable source to deal with smaller groups like birds especially when this is a very consistent usage within that group. Instead of trying to force a controversial statement into the MOS, lets think about the reality of the situation, and that is that Birds Are Capitalized, and find a way to mention this in nthe MOS in a way that is not going to give ammunition to editors of groups that do not have such a general established practice. If you look at the platypus caps discussion, you can see that I voted for LOWERCASE there exactly because there is no established official name list. -- Kim van der Linde 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not controversial at all in bird literature.

Again, Misplaced Pages is not bird literature. Do you deny that the practice is controversial here?

And article need to be based on the relevant literature.

Again, this conflates two very different concepts.

For factual information (e.g. a bird's migratory behavior), it's sensible to place greater trust in a specialist publication than in a non-specialist publication (such as a newspaper). But style is a separate matter. Reliable non-specialist sources overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of birds. That persons knowledgeable on birds themselves use a different convention doesn't render this incorrect.

Please consider the ramifications of the argument that we must adhere to the style conventions used in specialist literature. Such publications' style decisions often reflect the needs and expectations of their specialist readerships (and not those of a general audience). For example, Variety's prose seems downright bizarre to someone expecting normal English. I'm fairly confident that you wouldn't advocate emulating its house style in Misplaced Pages articles about the entertainment industry. —David Levy 00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, wikipedia is NOT bird literature. It is an encyclopedia that reports the information of topics as represented in the relevant literature. Even the Chicago Manual of Style realizes that. The problem is not the CMoS, but the editors of Misplaced Pages who want to enforce rules as ste in stone where style guides are actually more flexible. -- Kim van der Linde 00:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, wikipedia is NOT bird literature.

So why did you attempt to refute a claim that something is controversial at Misplaced Pages by noting that it's "not controversial at all in bird literature"?

It is an encyclopedia that reports the information of topics as represented in the relevant literature.

The factual information. That Variety routinely refers to comedic films and television series as "laffers" doesn't mean that we must do so when covering subjects in its scope (apart from direct quotations, of course).

Even the Chicago Manual of Style realizes that. The problem is not the CMoS, but the editors of Misplaced Pages who want to enforce rules as ste in stone where style guides are actually more flexible.

Please see my reply in the relevant section (where I note that the "set in stone" arguments are emanating from WikiProject Birds). —David Levy 01:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a universal convention in ornithology literature, as even WP:BIRDS has admitted several times, it's a "growing trend" to quote from one of their own debates on this topic. We cannot mis-state the facts just to appease fans of title-casing. That would be blatant bias, against policy. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So, because WP:BIRDS uses the official capitalized names as the norm for their articles, consistent with most of the relevant literature (yes, you can find a few exceptions within the bird relevant literature), this has to be mentioned as controversial in the MOS? It is just going to be a hook for repeated discussions that are not going to change the fact that bird literature does use caps. It only serves as a reminder that apparently WP:BIRD editors are stupid for following the conversion in their field and it does not serve the purpose of clarifying how species are named. What is needed is a descriptive of the practise at wikipedia, if necessary complemented with an explanation for the exception. -- Kim van der Linde 16:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's controversial because it has generated 7 years of constant conflict. It is arguably the single most controversial would-be rule on the entire system. There is no controversy that the AUP prefers capitalization. There is great controversy over whether their preference has any relevance for Misplaced Pages and what we do in the best interests of the world's most general readership, and about what merits the rationales for that organization's preference may have. It is not the purpose of the MOS to be descriptive, but to be prescriptive. It is as descriptive as it can reasonably be within its mandate to provide a consistent, workable set of style rules for the entire system. But it isn't going to distort the truth to make you feel better, or hide the fact that there is controversy simply because you are on an uncomfortable side of one such controversy. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it is controversial because people who have no knowledge about the bird conventions try to push a general rule on a group that has a very explicit and clear different way of Capitalizing. -- Kim van der Linde 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a completely vapid pseudo-argument, as well as incivil and an ad hominem attack. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are ignorant (generally or of your field). The vast majority of editors, who have commented at any length against bird name capitalization over the last many years on Misplaced Pages are perfectly well aware that IOC and most (not all) ornithological publications capitalize bird common names, and what the espoused reasons are for this. There's no way to miss those facts, since they are basically the only ones at WP:BIRDS's disposal, and you and everyone else there who gets involved in this debate (a small handful, actually) do little but repeat them over and over like a mantra, as if saying them again will make it mean more. It's not that people don't know or don't understand about bird name capitalization. It's that you don't understand, or more likely pretend not to, that other editors, including other biology editors with very few exceptions, do not find IOC's rationales compelling in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Me, I have a deep herpetology background (though my degree is in anthropology), so if you think I'm not aware of nomenclatural issues like this, and used to specialist publications capitalizing things like Pacific Giant Salamander, you are sadly mistaken. I just know better than to try to apply a rule from a very narrow specialist context to a vastly broader, general one. PS: I repeat that your habit of misusing capitalization a "Form of Emphasis" strongly suggests that you do not fully understand the nature of this debate and why it is important to so many people, nor that you are undermining your own "cause". Capitalization is not for randomly making things stand out and seem important, the only purpose that is served by capitalizing animal names here. We have boldfaced subjects (Pacific giant salamander) in article leads and bright blue link text (Pacific giant salamander) for doing that. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 03:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at the definition of controversy: "dispute, argument, or debate, esp one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement and esp one carried on in public or in the press." We are having a dispute/argument/debate about this matter right now, so yes, it is literally controversial. The suggestion "controversial" should not be rejected on grounds of untruth. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What is controversial is the need of some editors to force generic rules on all pages. So, why not word it as

• "WP:BIRDS follows the consensus in the ornithology literature to capitalize common names of birds. Despite this well established convension, generic editors keep ignoring the facts and try to enforce generic lowecase to the articles"

That is what I see is the controversy. -- Kim van der Linde 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget we have almost the same situation in MOS:CAPS#Celestial bodies. In Halley's Comet and Andromeda Galaxy, the generic parts are capitalized due to the recommendations of an insider organization, not due to common usage. In usage the capitalization in more common in astronomy pubs than in general pubs, but still not close to consistent. In general pubs, lowercase dominates. Same thing again in dog breeds, like Labrador Retriever and Basset Hound in spite of very mixed usage & in sources. Also the subway in New York City: New York City Subway. All by local consensus. All controversial. Maybe if we mention them all together instead of singling out birds it will be less offensive; or maybe it will attract four times as many people to argue with your approach. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a serious misinterpretation. Halley's Comet is capitalized according to the usual conventions of the English language, because it's a proper name. It doesn't have a "generic part"; the entire name is Halley's Comet, not Halley's by itself. --Trovatore (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would distinguish all of these cases as being part of the general convention that identifiable places are proper names by default. Even the small ravine near where I live is universally capitalized as Bear Canyon or, in Spanish, Arroyo del Oso, despite being basically just a drainage ditch. There wouldn't seem to be a rationale for not capitalizing a place just because it's in outer space (cf. Jupiter and Pluto, not jupiter and pluto). Subway systems are capitalized more perhaps because they're systems, I don't know, but they seem to be universally capitalized: Paris Métro, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), etc. It seems far less controversial. PS: No one is singling out birds; WP:BIRDS itself has long demanded recognition for its own "standard". The breeds/cultivars issue is another matter, with different rationales than species lower-casing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I think you're just making stuff up. It's a stretch to call celestial bodies "places"; I've never seen that approach before. And "systems" are not generally capitalized; the BART and MARTA and Underground and Metro are because they have official proper names; the New York subway doesn't have such a name (see usage); neither does the Stockholm metro. Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

<shrug> I'm just offering what I think is a completely reasonable hypothesis for why we capitalize things like planets, comets, asteroids, etc. Given sufficient tech, you could literally go to them and walk on them. If that doesn't constitute a clear conception of "place", I'm not sure what does. Our moon, for example, has certainly been conceived of as a place people would go to in vehicles since at least as early as H. G. Wells's time, and now that we've actually been there and increasing number of people capitalize it as the Moon (no idea what CMOS, Harts's, etc. say about that). If the NYC subway system really has no name (which seems near-incredible to me), then I would definitely that the article be moved to New York City subway. I meant the examples I used are systems in the official, proper name sense (like Albuquerque Public Schools is the local school system vs. "the public school system of Albuquerque"), so we're actually in agreement on that one, just talking past one another. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In English, in place names we capitalize the generic noun : Isle of Man, Mount Everest, the Pacific Ocean. It seems bizarre to me at first sight, but at least it is consistent. In French, the rule is consistently the opposite : l'île de Man, le mont Blanc, le lac Baïkal, l'océan Pacifique.

Paris Métro is awkward, but I tolerate it. We should choose. If we use the English word, then Paris Metro. If we use the French word, then Paris métro. Let's admit that, in Paris Métro, Métro is the French word used in the English way.

--Nnemo (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted before, there is no other WikiProject than WP:BIRDS that has arrived at a consensus against the default. The notion that we need to mention insects or plants or whatever is a red herring that distracts from progress being made. WP:BIRDS's own case is that that "birds are special" basically: There is one unifying, "official" common name in English for every bird species. This is a unique situation that does not apply to plants or bugs or whatever. Detractors of title casing feel that this "officialness" is an irrelevancy, for clear reasons that don't need to be reiterated here; but make no mistake that it is the sole basis for WP:BIRDS seeking an exception to the sentence-casing default. The birds issue is not going to be settled here and now, and that's okay. But there is no basis for muddying the waters with the non-issue that sources about plants and whatnot do not have a consistent standard. The very fact that they don't is party of why MOS does have one. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Could we keep it to suggestions for wording in this thread? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to; people keep wanting to add exceptions for imaginary consensuses on bugs and plants. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I've figured out what's going on here. Those of us who are not in favor of using capitalized common names want to say "disputed/questioned/controversial" to make it clear that the practice on WP: Birds is not fully endorsed by the MoS. That's what we want to get across. The "Capitals are common practice on WP:Birds" protects existing articles from overzealous de-capitalization and "but this is controversial/whatever" makes it clear that the practice is nonetheless not fully endorsed. How do we get that idea across? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "fully endorsed"? If the MoS says it's done for birds, then it's saying it's done for birds. As long as it also says it's done differently for non-birds, it's clearly not recommending the bird solution for anything other than birds (or moths or whatever other specific exceptions it ends up making). It is hardly the job of the MoS to start trying to describe degrees of controversy (which is often hard to judge, given how a small percentage of total editors can make a huge amount of noise about something). The point of having an MoS is largely to settle disputes like this one way or the other (even if the solution is not to everyone's preference) so that encyclopedia-building can continue without the distraction of such controversies.--Kotniski (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned this above, but it got lost in the shuffle: We needn't describe degree of controversy to note that it exists. It's completely normal for MOS to do this: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles: "There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece". Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/France & French-related: "Present English usage itself varies on how to spell such French forms and there is currently no consensus among editors on the issue...." Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles: "...decided to leave the article on the island at Ireland and the article on the Irish state at Republic of Ireland until consensus changes." And so on. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's my understanding that, strictly speaking, the common names of bird species should not be capitalized but we're settling for status quo because we can't stop the bird editors from doing what they think is right. So we're prepping a guideline that would read "This is done, but don't do it anywhere else." That's what I mean by "not fully endorsed." It's tolerated, not supported or recommended.

We need some kind of "controversial" or "not fully endorsed" to make it clear that this practice is only for birds. "We do this for birds," unaccompanied, begs the question "so why not for monkeys/chairs/etc?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can say it's because bird editors have so decided and explain why they have so decided (usage in the orni-literature). And we can say it's only for birds. That should cover all the bases. It is supported and recommended for birds (since it's the current consensus, just like all the other things on MoS which are not universally liked, like dashes and non-curly quotes and so on), so no problem with implying that much.--Kotniski (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But it isn't supported and recommended for birds. That's the whole crux. Very few issues on Misplaced Pages have ever aroused so much consistent "Stop doing that! It's wrong" outcry all over Misplaced Pages as what WP:BIRDS insists on. What has happened is that everyone's simply worn out from debating it, and it is more expedient at this time to say that the birds project, or "some editors" or whatever phrasing, prefer that style for birds, in ornithology articles only, but that it's not a consensus position (i.e., it is controversial), and go about our business of making the rest of the encyclopedia consistent with normal English, maybe revisiting the still and always highly controversial birds issues some other time. By no means is this about declaring that there is a Misplaced Pages consensus in favor of bird capitalization. There's a general consensus against species capitalization, and a general consensus that fighting with the birds project is an impasse again, and a general consensus (an outright policy) that wikiprojects do not get to make up their own rules. That policy, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS obviates the "because editors have so decided" rationale. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's too much for me to follow here. What would "declaring victory" entail, particularly in terms of wording? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The 6 points proposed above, in some form. The hard to follow mess has basically been a one-party effort against ever mentioning that what WP:BIRDS is doing is controversial in any way, and instead lobbying for MOS to essentially promote what WP:BIRDS is doing, rather than observe and report that it's happening and controversial. I think it's clear that there's no consensus to take such an extreme position. That would mean the next task is deciding what wording works best for the "controversial"/"no consensus" issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

But it would be silly and POINT-y and BATTLEFIELD-y for MoS to recommend (or suggest) doing something that we know goes against the established practice for birds. If someone were going to create an article about the cross-eyed booby, then we want them to use the title Cross-eyed Booby, to be consistent with all the other bird articles. It would serve no purpose to tell them that there are (some number of) editors who vociferously disagree with this practice (the same is true of many of the points in the MoS); and it would certainly be counter-productive to encourage them to title their article using lower case. If you want to change the practice (which I kind of agree would be a good thing) then start an RfC specifically about doing so, and see if a sufficient degree of consensus can be gained for diong so.--Kotniski (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Chicago manual of Style

So, what does the often mentioned Chicago manual of style actually have to say about this:

• "For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.118. In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary".

What do we have here. First of all, CMoS yields to dictionaries and the ICBN and ICZN. The ICZN does not regulate common names, so it is weird for the CMoS to refer to them for common names. But, what is important is that they recognize that there are external sources that have something to say about this contentious topic. That leads to the next section:

• Q. At one time, the location of a publisher could be used to get a phone number via directory assistance. This is no longer how anyone would do it, and publishers have frequently moved, been acquired, and so forth, so the location is often highly ambiguous. Authors spend tens of thousands of hours annually looking up or making up publisher locations. I’m staring now at a copy editor’s request that I identify the location of Cambridge University Press—and the editor says it is because you insist on it. Can you give me any sane reason for this collective expenditure of effort and print in 2012? It would make me feel better, as it feels like an empty ritual of no contemporary value, engaged in by a field that is unaware of the digital era. Insistence on archaic rules brings to mind the replicant lament in Blade Runner, “Then we’re stupid and we’ll die.”
• A. We are so misunderstood! CMOS is not in the business of insisting on this or that. From our very first edition in 1906 we have stated very clearly that “rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.” As for place of publication, in scholarly research it can be useful in tracking the development of the literature within a discipline (especially in instances where publishers are old and obscure). In fact, it’s not unusual for an academic to write a bibliography that includes only the place of publication for each work cited, without the publisher. When that happens, the editor or publisher must decide whether to require more information.

So, what we have here is that the CMoS explicit states that their rules are not set in stone and that you should follow conventions as they are within specific fields. They themselves explicitly yield to external sources for the proper spelling of names. So, if anything, the CMoS does not dictate that all names should be lowercase, but indicates that it is appropriate to be flexible when the convention within a field differs from their rules. Ergo, what WP:BIRS is doing by following the authoritative guide to bird names is what the CMoS suggests us to do. -- Kim van der Linde 00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so CMoS says "refer to dictionaries." Dictionary.com uses lowercase for "starling," "harpy eagle" and "white-throated sparrow."

Yes, Chicago allows for exceptions, but WP:Birds hasn't proven in a concrete way that an exception is merited. For example, in American English, periods and commas are supposed to go inside adjacent closing punctuation marks ("like this.") A clear and overwhelming majority of American English style guides state this; it's what's taught in schools; it's what 99% of American English documents actually do. However, many American literary criticism and computer programming journals prefer the British style, in which periods and commas are placed according to sense. This is because they discuss punctuation and strings literal, respectively, in such a way that correctly tucked closing punctuation might cause confusion. So, in these two branches of academia, you'll see an exception to prevailing American English rules. WP:Birds has cited no such practical basis for its capitalization practices.

That's why we talk about style guides plural. We're looking at all the reliable sources rather than just a narrow subset. If the overwhelming majority of English language style guides and publications either recommend or use lowercase, then Misplaced Pages should too.

We've been talking in circles for days here. What SmC's points actually do is describe the status quo. They take bird editors' preference for capital letters and they state it in the guideline. That will protect articles in WP:birds from being converted to lowercase by overzealous editors. By stating that this practice is controversial/questioned/not universally regarded as correct, it protects articles outside of WP:Birds from capitalization by those same overzealous editors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking is an art. CMoS states also: "or the authoritative guides to nomenclature". Anyway, could you pealse direct me to those many other style guides. I would like to poick them apart as well just like what I did with the CMoS that actually supports the WP:BIRD position. -- Kim van der Linde 01:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

But what we've been talking about this whole time is which guides should be considered authoritative and in what context.

Chicago is the big one. Some of the others, in no particular order, are the MLA Style Guide, the Style Guide of the American Psychological Association, Style Guide of the American Medical Association, Style Guide of the American Chemical Society, Fowler's Guide to English Usage, and New Hart's Rules. There is a longer list here at Style guide. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No one asserts that style guides' rules are set in stone. Their recommendations are intended to reflect common usage (just as those of the MoS are), frequently are updated in accordance with real-word changes (e.g. when the AP Stylebook switched from "Web site" to "website"), and may be followed or ignored as each individual publication deems fit.

"In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives," but it recognizes that no convention is applicable to all contexts and defers to specialist authorities when appropriate. "When appropriate" = "when writing for a specialist publication/audience or in a context in which its conventions are relevant".

We aren't citing style guides because they make the rules. We're citing them because they expertly compile the rules most widely followed in professional publications (general ones in the case of general style guides). The situation isn't "x is true because y says so"; it's "y says x because it's true". Reliable non-specialist sources overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of birds.

Frankly, the "set in stone" arguments are emanating from WikiProject Birds. —David Levy 01:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am glad we can agree that style guides are not set in stone. So, now that we have solved that issue, we can remove the strawman argument that the style guide dictate lower case for bird names. And as I have shown here, the CMoS even refers to authoritative guides, which is exactly what WP:BIRD is doing. What is controversial is that WP editors do not like that. And that is the controversy, not that WP:BIRDS follows the rules of the game. As such, the continued insistence to kick the WP:BIRD editors in the ass because they are not willing to bow to the dictate of the generic editors has to stop. -- Kim van der Linde 02:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we can agree, then, since style guides are not set in stone, that everyone is free to disregard IOC's and WP:BIRDS's and write proper English again in bird articles. (Sarcastic and haughtily dismissive pseudo-logic works both ways.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh, no. You seem to confuse Style Guide with Authoritative Guide for names. -- Kim van der Linde 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point entirely. You're trying desperately to cite IOC as a style guide as well as fact guide. If you hold that style guides can be ignored, then IOC can be ignored as a style guide (even if it has be considered reliable for nomenclatural facts, like the fact that the common name "Mexican jay", styled with title case or not, is and only is equivalent to Aphelocoma wollweberi and no other species binomial and vice versa.) QED, checkmate, please drive through. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 03:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not missing the point, and thus not checkmate. Authoritative guide does not imply lack of authority over style. CMOS refers to them under the Capitalization of Animals and Plant Names! They yield. Not the other way round. -- Kim van der Linde 03:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Defiantly putting your king back on the board doesn't mean the game didn't end. Everyone else on this page understands that you've contradicted yourself into a corner, even if you won't face it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You can proclaim what you want. That is your choice. It works with some people. They will feel intimidated. I see its a sign of weakness. And as for you edit summary, glad you bailing out, Maybe the more sensible people can finish this discussion. -- Kim van der Linde 03:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That you put this in terms of combat instead of game play says much more than you think. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 03:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, I see this as a discussion based on merrits. -- Kim van der Linde 03:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No one here trying to insult you or other WP:Birds editors in any way. We just don't agree with you that a set of rules meant for specialist publications is appropriate or necessary in a general publication. Just because CMoS admits that common English rules don't apply to all situations doesn't mean that they don't apply to this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself? I do happen to dislike excessive capitalization, but the overwhelming majority of English language style guides agree that non-proper nouns should not be capitalized in ordinary prose. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am glad we can agree that style guides are not set in stone. So, now that we have solved that issue, we can remove the strawman argument that the style guide dictate lower case for bird names.

You're conflating two separate concepts and throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Style guides don't "dictate" anything. As noted above, we aren't citing them in that context; we're citing them as authorities on the subject of common usage.

And as I have shown here, the CMoS even refers to authoritative guides, which is exactly what WP:BIRD is doing.

Again, you're ignoring context. The distinction between specialist and non-specialist publications is very real. I'm not aware of any style guide that recommends the use of specialist style conventions (where they differ from non-specialist usage) in non-specialist contexts.

What is controversial is that WP editors do not like that.

One could say the same about members of WikiProject Birds and their opinion of the convention overwhelmingly favored outside of their circle. But whom to blame (if anyone) for the disagreement is irrelevant to the question of whether the matter is controversial.

And that is the controversy, not that WP:BIRDS follows the rules of the game.

Misplaced Pages is in the "general-interest encyclopedia" game. WikiProject Birds follows the rules of a different game. (If you disagree, please cite some reliable non-specialist sources that routinely capitalize common names of birds.)

This, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that WikiProject Birds is wrong. But even if we assume that it's sensible for Misplaced Pages to follow its preferred convention, this remains an unambiguous exception to our normal style rules (as members of the WikiProject have acknowledged).

As such, the continued insistence to kick the WP:BIRD editors in the ass because they are not willing to bow to the dictate of the generic editors has to stop.

I'm sorry that you perceive good-faith disagreement in such a light. —David Levy 03:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Very cogent analysis, David. Another thing is that CMOS doesn't make sense on this one in more than one way when it says: "For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN." It's not just that they've suggested organizations not relevant to the matter, the entire thing is confused. No dictionary can tell you what the common name of Notophthalmus viridescens is, only how to spell "eastern" and "newt" and whether they are proper names by themselves. I don't think any dictionary in the world has "eastern newt" in it, capitalized or not. Webster's Third New International, which I think is the second-largest print dictionary of English after the OED, does not (notably, it does have "eastern kingbird" and "eastern larch", lower case). Meanwhile, taxonomic organizations theoretically (maybe CMOS can be forgiven for picking ones that don't deal with common names much) are a proper source for what those names are and for the spelling of scientific names, but are not authoritative on grammar rules like proper nouns and capitalization. CMOS basically just brainfarted really badly on the entire thing. The guide's guidance on this particular topic basically cannot be parsed as meaningful. I've looked through several others at my disposal, and they simply don't address the issue, probably because common usage is so overwhelmingly anti-caps that they didn't feel they needed to. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Good, so we have the CMoS, which was touted as THE authoritative guide, brainfarting. Interesting how it first is used against a whole group of editors and when it turns out that it does not support the assertion made all along, it is brainfarting. I call that special pleading based on I don't like it!!!!!. And as cherry on the cake, "they simply don't address the issue". So much for being a reliable source. NOT. -- Kim van der Linde 03:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, no one has cited The Chicago Manual of Style in the manner that you claim. That's the straw man. —David Levy 03:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. I certainly never did. All I've ever heard anyone reasonably say about it on this issue is that it defers to dictionaries. The ICZN bit is just "noise". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 03:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to get the feeling we're just feeding something here and should stop responding, declare victory per the "Misplaced Pages is not a filibuster' principle, and move on, because all the arguments rapidly turn circular (at best) with this party. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 03:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to just strong handle this discussion? -- Kim van der Linde 03:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. What I am suggesting is that you are intentionally filibustering instead of working toward consensus, and that a consensus clearly exists that capitalizing common names of animals is controversial (a.k.a. is something that a majority of sources and editors believe is incorrect a.k.a. does not have site-wide consensus a.k.a. however else it can be phrased). I'm further suggesting that something to this effect should clearly be added to the guidelines over your objection, because your objection has yet to demonstrate or try to demonstrate that the controversy does not exist; rather it is motivated by strengthening the apparent position of WP:BIRDS in the guidelines, at all costs, and you clearly will not be satisfied by any wording that does not blatantly promote WP:BIRDS and its idea as a good and well-accepted one, which simply cannot happen because it isn't true. Ironically, the effect all this is having is making the WP:BIRDS position look increasingly irrational and indefensible, when it wasn't really under attack in this guideline synching endeavour to begin with. We were going out of our way to accommodate the project and its quirks. I think a number of editors are now much less inclined to do so. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus and "declare victory" are not compatible. So, what is it going to be? -- Kim van der Linde 04:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I am still a person, not a something. -- Kim van der Linde 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't call you a thing. I'm referring to what seems to be a monstrous maw of circular reasoning, ever hungry, that eats everything in its path, that you are using to waste everyone's time. Every argument you have raised has been repeatedly addressed by multiple parties, but you continue to say the same things over and over again. It's pointless. A lone editor being tendentious cannot, per WP:CONSENSUS, stop everyone else from coming to a consensus and proceeding. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 03:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Than please explain where the thing in this sentence was referring to: "we're just feeding something here".-- Kim van der Linde 04:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Repeat: "I'm referring to what seems to be a monstrous maw of circular reasoning, ever hungry, that eats everything in its path, that you are using to waste everyone's time." I honestly don't believe you are trolling, but the effect is very similar. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 04:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody asks you to stay in the discussion. You can leave anytime you want. But you seem to be so set on codifying the controversy into the MOS. The simple way out is to drop that and just document practice and underlying arguments and leave it to that. Really, if your purpose was to sync things, the fastest way would have been to just do that. And that would have been exactly the same as what printed style guides do. I cannot change that you chose differently. -- Kim van der Linde 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that you would like to see MOS enshrine what WP:BIRDS is doing as something with system-wide consensus, but that would be nearly the furthest thing from the truth. Leave the discussion? I'm trying to steer it somewhere useful. You don't jump out of a car you're trying to get somewhere in. This is the second time you've suggested I just go away. That's not a very convincing rhetorical position. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Rant

Rant follows:

The more I read the discussion the more it seems to be that this is some sort of vendetta to "rein in" the belligerent know-it-alls who dare to go against the all-powerful MOS. In effect turning this into a personal battle of WikiProjects against WikiProjects when nothing could be further from the truth. As already pointed out repeatedly, the conventions exist outside of Misplaced Pages. The members of the affected WikiProjects are following the respective conventions of their respective fields. None of them are doing it just to thumb their noses at the more "mainstream" Misplaced Pages editors and continually implying it is so is extremely insulting. In particular the accusations of entire WikiProjects exhibiting WP:OWN is ridiculous. That's like saying the ornithologists or botanists or lepidopterists who are painstakingly standardizing common names are doing it for shits and giggles.

This isn't a "me layman, you specialist" type of argument, so drop the indignated act at how dare these WikiProjects subordinate already. We are all Wikipedians, none of us are acting as specialists here.

And a very prevalent false assumption here is that various specialist fields are somehow answerable to a higher power of generalists who dictate what should be. You couldn't be more wrong. A consensus within a specialist field is far more binding than a consensus within the general scientific community.

Again, the default in biological sciences is not to legislate any conventions whatsoever when it comes to common names. In short, there is no rule that says common names should be in sentence case, as far as I know. I challenge anyone to go dig something up from the nomenclatural governing bodies of the different fields. And please, not something completely unconnected to biological sciences like CMoS. That's like going to an Ichthyologist to get your tooth pulled out.

On the other hand, there are certain specialist groups that do impose conventions on common names for perfectly valid reasons - to avoid the inevitable confusion that follows when a name is unregulated. This must be respected. The fact that there are naming codes for binomina stems from the very same reason - to avoid confusion over which biologist is referring to what species.

Furthermore, yes this is a general encyclopedia. Does that make it okay to sacrifice scientific accuracy simply so the pages look prettier? Ugh. Priorities indeed. The academia already looks down on us for this very same reason, now we're actually legislating the dumbing down of Misplaced Pages. You may not notice it if you misspelled a scientific name or failed to italicize it (both of which someone here was guilty of in this very discussion), but those that do notice it immediately know that this person should not be talking about anything related to biology.

Think of it like Fox News, putting Egypt in the middle of Iran and Syria. Those who don't know their geography (which will be the majority) will just continue nodding their heads as the newscaster increasingly makes an idiot of him/herself. Does that mean the channel was justified in not putting extra care with their geography just because someone personally believes some people out there don't have maps?

And lastly, in addition to WP:MEDRS, the oft-quoted WP:RS is WP:NEWSORG, which explain quite clearly how the argument that New York Times is just as reliable as say The Auk is complete nonsense. I quote:

"For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name."

-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The more I read the discussion the more it seems to be that this is some sort of vendetta to "rein in" the belligerent know-it-alls who dare to go against the all-powerful MOS.

Meanwhile, others feel as though certain WikiProjects wish to "rein in" the ignorant peons who dare to defy the all-knowledgeable specialists' sacrosanct proclamations.

Personally, I think that it would be very helpful if editors on both sides were to set aside such attitudes and assume that all of us sincerely seek Misplaced Pages's betterment (and merely disagree on how to achieve it).

As already pointed out repeatedly, the conventions exist outside of Misplaced Pages. The members of the affected WikiProjects are following the respective conventions of their respective fields.

Agreed. There should be no doubt that the capitalization convention is real and legitimate. The question is whether it belongs in Misplaced Pages.

Many specialist publications employ specialist style conventions. These reflect the needs and expectations of their specialist readerships, which aren't necessarily the same as those of a general audience.

Editors of entertainment-related articles might feel comfortable adopting the style conventions of Variety, a highly reputable authority (and likely source of factual information) widely imitated by industry writers. I suspect that the results would horrify you.

None of them are doing it just to thumb their noses at the more "mainstream" Misplaced Pages editors and continually implying it is so is extremely insulting.

You began your "rant" with the statement that "the more read the discussion the more it seems to be that this is some sort of vendetta to 'rein in' the belligerent know-it-alls who dare to go against the all-powerful MOS." I realize that you're frustrated and genuinely perceive such an attack, but this is exactly the same attitude that you (rightly) condemn.

As noted above, such comments (from both sides) are unhelpful. I see no evidence that anyone is acting out of malice or spite. This is an honest disagreement among editors seeking to improve Misplaced Pages.

In particular the accusations of entire WikiProjects exhibiting WP:OWN is ridiculous. That's like saying the ornithologists or botanists or lepidopterists who are painstakingly standardizing common names are doing it for shits and giggles.

On the contrary, most WP:OWN violations occur among passionate editors/editor groups who take their efforts to improve Misplaced Pages very seriously. It has nothing to do with frivolity.

This isn't a "me layman, you specialist" type of argument, so drop the indignated act at how dare these WikiProjects subordinate already. We are all Wikipedians, none of us are acting as specialists here.

Certainly, it would be incorrect to claim that every member of the WikiProjects in question has attempted to exercise special editorial authority. Some have straightforwardly acknowledged that they advocate exceptions and appealed to the Misplaced Pages community for support.

Others have conveyed (both here and at the WikiProjects themselves) a belief that WikiProjects are entitled to create special guidelines for "their" articles, overruling those of the wider community.

Again, however, this doesn't stem from sinister motives. It merely reflects the editors' sincere desire to ensure that articles about which they're passionate are written in what they believe to be the optimal manner.

Likewise, other editors are passionate about Misplaced Pages as a whole and merely want to ensure that it's written in what we believe to be the optimal manner. (And to be clear, I don't mean to imply that WikiProject members don't also care about Misplaced Pages as a whole.)

And a very prevalent false assumption here is that various specialist fields are somehow answerable to a higher power of generalists who dictate what should be.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that. Specialists clearly are entitled to set standards for their own writing, including conventions deviating from general usage.

Our point is that on matters of grammatical style, general writers aren't somehow answerable to a higher power of non-grammarian specialists who dictate what should be (i.e. they aren't wrong to refer to a species as "common blackbird" instead of "Common Blackbird").

Both styles are valid in their respective contexts. Specialists are correct to write specialist literature in their styles, while non-specialists are correct to write non-specialist literature in theirs.

A consensus within a specialist field is far more binding than a consensus within the general scientific community.

Agreed. But these specialists aren't experts in the field of English grammar.

Again, the default in biological sciences is not to legislate any conventions whatsoever when it comes to common names. In short, there is no rule that says common names should be in sentence case, as far as I know.

They probably also lack rules against writing in ALL-UPPERCASE or uʍop-ǝpısdn. As you note, it isn't a biologist's place to legislate English conventions.

Furthermore, yes this is a general encyclopedia. Does that make it okay to sacrifice scientific accuracy simply so the pages look prettier?

You're begging the question. There is no consensus — here or among reliable sources in general — that failure to adhere to the convention in question "sacrifices scientific accuracy".

And I've seen no one cite "so the pages look prettier" as an argument against the convention's use at Misplaced Pages.

Think of it like Fox News, putting Egypt in the middle of Iran and Syria. Those who don't know their geography (which will be the majority) will just continue nodding their heads as the newscaster increasingly makes an idiot of him/herself.

Non-adherence to a style convention ≠ factual incorrectness.

"Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic."

No one disputes that. Ornithological publications typically are the most valuable sources of ornithological facts. Likewise, botanical publications typically are the most valuable sources of botanical facts. Neither ornithological publications nor botanical publications are the most valuable sources in the area of English grammar, a topic topic with which they deal only tangentially. —David Levy 09:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

TLDR break (for people summoned here by outreach)

Sorry, have not read all the above, but impression I got is that we will just formalize what exists already. Looks like all are pretty calm. I personally prefer the usage in newspapers and Britannica of old school lowercasing. (Do you say "Chef's Knife" or "chef's knife" when indicating the compound noun versus the possessed item?) That said, I know the birders have been going a different direction for 50 years. And will point to field guide usage and the tendancies of their journals. And it would never do to try to reign them in. I think some common sense trench is what makes sense.

Only thing is that what makes sense is ALL the species in a birder article should be handled the way they want. And the converse. So "Painted Turtle" in their article. But in the Painted turtle article itself, normal capitalization "painted turtle" is used...and similarly it is "bald eagle" within that article.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's disagreed with that point. Consistency within the article is one of MOS's key functions. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

TLDR indeed. I intend to follow usage in reliable sources. When it comes to Australian plants, reliable sources overwhelmingly favour capitalisation of common names. Is there a single argument in this wall of text that trumps my desire to follow the nomenclature and orthography of my field by doing what my colleagues do in real publications in real reliable sources in the real world? No, I didn't think so. Hesperian 06:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages always works best with a single rule to refer to, and I would support the orginal points. I personally don't agree with capitalising bird names, it seems like an affectation, but we wither need to agree to enforce lower case on birds, or include the point in the MOS that all animals are lower case except birds. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 07:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A crucial point lost in the mess here is that the birds exception is, and for over seven years has been, highly controversial. How to express that in a non-inflammatory way is where we're at. There's no resolution to the birds debate in sight, so MOS simply needs to observe that the controversy exists and that the WP:BIRDS hold-out position should not (per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy) be emulated in any sort of "If WP:BIRDS gets one, our project now demands an exception for , too!" free-for-all. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As before, you choose to ignore the fact (and it is a fact) that it is not only in bird articles that capitalization is used (and will continue to be used whatever the MOS says). I can only repeat what Hesperian says above for Austrialian sources, "When it comes to plants, reliable sources overwhelmingly favour capitalisation of common names. Is there a single argument in this wall of text that trumps my desire to follow the nomenclature and orthography of my field by doing what my colleagues do in real publications in real reliable sources in the real world? No, I didn't think so." Peter coxhead (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The flaw in that argument is that "reliable sources" ≠ "specialist sources". Misplaced Pages is a non-specialist publication, so it usually reflects the style conventions of reliable non-specialist sources. —David Levy 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not a flaw in my argument. Reliable sources in my field capitalise common names. This statement holds across the board, from wildflower books pitched at the average Joe, through to taxonomic treatises written for working botanists. Hesperian 17:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

...both of which are specialist publications. Again, those aren't the only "reliable sources". What do non-specialist publications (i.e. those not dedicated to coverage of plants/nature, such as general-audience books, newspapers, magazines and websites) do? —David Levy 19:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WTF? Publications not dedicated to coverage of plants don't bother to talk about plant species. They aren't exactly pop culture you know. Hesperian 01:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You assert, if I understand correctly, that common names of plant species don't appear (or rarely appear) outside botanical publications. Is that what you mean? —David Levy 02:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow I might be in the mood to expand our article on Banksia pulchella, the Teasel Banksia. I assert that I won't find any information on that plant worth including in the article, other than in reliable sources that you would deem "specialist". I furthermore assert that the vast majority of reliable sources on that plant will give the common name in title case. Hesperian 03:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And the vast majority of reliable sources on capitalization will tell you not to. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

...which reduces this discussion to the pointless bickering of ideologues. I have to make a choice between being consistent with my sources, and being consistent across Misplaced Pages. Some of us value consistency with sources. Others value consistency across Misplaced Pages. These are ideological positions. There is no rational basis for arguing for one over the other... except for the ad hominem observation that the people who value consistency with sources are generally the people who come to Misplaced Pages to edit articles, whereas the people who value consistency across Misplaced Pages are generally the people who come to Misplaced Pages to impose rules on other editors. Hesperian 04:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, guides and sources are better than guesses. Check out the lowercase 5 of first 9 (skipping the wp copy) Teasel Banksia book hits. This indicates that capitalization is not necessarily; there's no need to override the MOS style to be consistent with good sources. Same way with birds, dog breeds, comets, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is intended to serve readers first and foremost. Most of Misplaced Pages's readers are unacquainted with botanical literature and the specialist conventions thereof.

Editors of entertainment-related articles might feel comfortable adopting the style conventions of Variety, a highly reputable authority (and likely source of factual information) widely imitated by industry writers. I suspect that the outcome would horrify you.

Consistency across Misplaced Pages isn't the primary goal; consistency with reliable sources is. And while specialist publications are reliable sources on matters of fact, they don't trump general publications on matters of style.

I agree that assertions of inherent "rightness" and "wrongness" (from both sides) are ideological and unhelpful. Clearly, each of the two styles is appropriate within its respective context (specialist and non-specialist literature). But it's perfectly reasonable to point out that Misplaced Pages is a non-specialist publication and argue that it should be written accordingly (which it is in almost every subject area). —David Levy 05:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You stated that "publications not dedicated to coverage of plants don't bother to talk about plant species." This is patently false. I don't expect editors of Misplaced Pages's plant articles to derive factual information (e.g. ecology and life cycle) from many non-specialist sources, but that doesn't negate their relevance on matters of style. —David Levy 05:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Reliable sources do not favor capitalisation of common names. Reliable sources overwhelmingly favor not capitalising common names, except for the first word of a sentence. Specialist sources represent a small subset of reliable sources, and within that subset the favor shifts, but Misplaced Pages does not restrict RS to that subset. If this were "Wikibotanypedia", we might so restrict RS, but this is a general encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Hesperian, there is. The argument is that because Misplaced Pages is not limited to your field but rather an encyclopedia (meaning that it covers as many fields as possible), it must not limit itself to one field when seeking reliable sources. For the question of "should X or Y be capitalized," it can and should consult general style guides as well as specialist style guides. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The real world also "is not limited to your field", yet somehow, miraculously, it continues to turn, even while mammalologists and ornithologists dare to use different capitalisation conventions. Hesperian 16:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there is a policy that states that an article should be based on the available WP:reliable sources, and that includes both general and specialist sources. And if that happens to be a bird article, that include capitalization. -- Kim van der Linde 16:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You lead with "No" there, but you're agreeing with Darkfrog24 -- reliable sources include both specialist and general sources. And looking at both specialist and general sources for birds, the majority of them use sentence casing. It's only when you exclude general sources that you can find a case for using Title Casing, but as we've just agreed, we don't exclude general sources, we include both. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. How many reliable sources have discussed that the common practice of bird editors to Capitalize Bird Names is incorrect? ZERO. What I have seen is claims of "This is how it is done, see all these generic style manuals" But neither actually says anything specific about birds. If I use that same methods, I could force creationism oin each and every biology article under the argument that "This is what people belief, see all these generic creationist books". Just using power of the numbers is not a valid way to determine what is correct, and definably not a reliable source. So, show me the reliable sources that discuss why the common practise of capitalizing bird names is incorrect and should not be done. We have shown the sources that argue it should be done. -- Kim van der Linde 21:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I have at my fingertips: Bedford Handbook, fifth edition, page 240, refers to "toucans" and "macaws," both lowercase, as part of an example of good writing. On page 242, it's "chickens" and "peacocks." I doubt it specifically addresses bird names specifically, but it does address the difference between common and proper nouns and, as we can see, it does use lowercase for bird names. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's an example of what the birders are talking about. As I understand it, they write robin, but American Robin. This has the function of avoiding the confusion that an American robin might be any robin that's American, rather than the particular species called American Robin. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Darkfrog none of those are species. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would any of them talk about something so specific as bird names? I don't see how your request is reasonable or anyone's failure to answer it is a problem. Look—I don't think anyone is saying it is flat out wrong to capitalize them. Maybe a bit odd, but not totally wrong. The main point is that it is suboptimal to mix styles for different groups of species. Someone wants to capitalize plants names from Australia. Before it was African carnivorans. How many ways can we slice it? Since it seems pretty clear that in scholarly writing species names are capitalized a solid majority of the time, and this is supported by various style guides, it is reasonable for Misplaced Pages as a whole to capitalize species names. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How many reliable sources have discussed that the common practice of bird editors to Capitalize Bird Names is incorrect? ZERO.

No one asserts that it's incorrect for specialist editors to adopt specialist style conventions for specialist publications.

Misplaced Pages isn't a specialist publication, nor does it usually emulate specialist publications' style conventions inconsistent with those in general usage.

What I have seen is claims of "This is how it is done, see all these generic style manuals" But neither actually says anything specific about birds. If I use that same methods, I could force creationism oin each and every biology article under the argument that "This is what people belief, see all these generic creationist books".

Yet again, you're conflating the concepts of "fact" and "style".

No one disputes that ornithological publications typically are the most reliable sources of factual information about birds (e.g. their biology and breeding behavior). This doesn't make them authorities on English grammar (whose conventions negate the legitimacy of those in general usage). —David Levy 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And to really establish capitalization, you'd probably need to exclude even journal articles about birds that are not in ornithology journals. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should be based in the best sources. Generalist sources don't know the field in depth and can make all sort of mistakes and misinterpretations. Scholar books and articles in specialized journals are preferred to newspaper articles. WP:MEDRS makes this distinction very clear. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Specialist sources such as academic jounrals are the best at relaying facts and general-English style guides are the best at advising writers how to present thier information intelligibly. We should give each type of source precedence depending on what we're trying to do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Generalist sources can spell the names incorrectly or misuse them because they are not written by experts in the field that are familiar with the topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they usually don't. Conversely, I'm a proofreader of scientific journal articles, and "the experts" misspell things all the time. This isn't a case of generalist sources getting it wrong; this is a case of a split between generalist and specialist guidance.

Let's look at your example, WP:MEDRS. It actually supports the idea that sources should be considered reliable or not depending on how they're to be used. Here's it's take on general news articles (contrasted with academic journal articles, bold and italics mine):

The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles.

A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure.

Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, and historical information in a medical article.

In other words, WP:MEDRS says to prefer academic journals over newspaper articles et al. for scientific facts while maintaining that news articles are indeed reliable for other types of information. WP:MEDRS supports the ideas of combining academic sources with other sources on Misplaced Pages and of using sources based on the source's subject matter, audience and area of expertise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Options for making the point that it's controversial

Here's a bullet-point analysis of the phrases offered as alternatives to choose from so far, to describe the MOS stance on the controversial exception that WP:BIRDS has been operating under, to always capitalize common names of birds. Three seem viable and interchangeable, and two more could be useful add-ons in wordier guidelines. The rest are problematic.

These three seem equivalent to me, more or less:

• "is controversial"
• "is perennially disputed",
• "does not have Misplaced Pages-wide consensus".

Just so the five guidelines don't all simply have the same text copy-pasted between them, I'd suggest they all be used on different pages. But someone may feel that one or another of them is inflammatory or something. All three of these variants are provably true, but the intent is to simply be factual, neither appeasing nor antagonizing, and it is difficult to predict who'll react how to what. I was very surprised, example, that someone found "controversial" to be more troublesome than "doesn't have consensus".

This pair are both true, but hinge the issue on externally-derived prescriptive grammar:

• "is not consistently regarded as correct"
• "contradicts the advice of general-English style guides"

There are actually multiple more important objections to upper-casing animal names. The two biggest are public perception of WP as low-credibility and incompetently edited, and lack of consistency leading to editorial confusion and chaos, both very real, interrelated and definitely tied to this issue. (The credibility one, i.e. "it makes us look like illiterates", is also incidentally the one most often raised in journals and sother cientific fora by capitalization-opposing specialists in fields where capitalization is being pushed; it is far from a trivial or idle concern someone just made up on a wikiproject talk page.) I do like both of those bulleted phrases, and they are good as additional reasons in the more detailed sub-guidelines, but I think MOS mainpage should stick to the "controversial"/"disputed"/"no consensus" point up top. As someone else suggested, detailing the exact nature of the dispute isn't germane to MOS's scope, and could be controversial itself.

This next one is too loaded, as "propriety" implies a moral/ethical issue to many people:

• "the propriety of this practice on Misplaced Pages is questioned".

The next two lend the MOS consensus imprimatur to something that is very, very contentious:

• "is not fully endorsed by MOS"
• "is not recommended for WikiProjects for which it is not already the status quo"

They imply that the WP:BIRDS practice does have partial endorsement from MOS or is recommended by MOS for birds and is a status quo acceptable to community at large, none of which is true (common names of animals are not capitalized, est. ca. 2008).

This one implies MOS is a policy that can demand, tolerate, or ban something:

• The use of capital letters for the common names of bird species is tolerated in WP:BIRDS but not recommended"

It also again lends an imprimatur of acceptance that isn't real.

This one misstates the facts:

• "WP:BIRDS follows the consensus in the ornithology literature to capitalize common names of birds"

As noted elsewhere in the longer debate, there is no such consensus, just what WP:BIRDS has twice called called "an increasingly common" or "growing ornithological convention", "by no means universal" "amongst bird authorities, but widespread", to synthesize the two, and it is based on a list provided by the IOC who are not even considered authoritative on taxonomy; meanwhile, someone even observed decreasing use of title case in U.S.-based bird publications. More importantly, it wrongly implies that MOS actually defers to project "guidelines" when they conflict with MOS, and implies that any project is free to use any convention it can find somewhere in specialist literature for anything, against whatever the real guidelines say. That would be a Pandora's box clearly forbidden by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in 2012's Misplaced Pages.

The core message is: "MOS has a lower-case standard for this, like the rest of the writing, editing and publishing world for general-audiences and very nearly all specialist audiences. One group of editors controversially does the opposite of what the MOS recommends. MOS isn't going to fight with them about it, since that's not is job, just acknowledge that the dispute exists and call for consistency everywhere else."

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Even the section post-TLDR is now TLDR. If there is an answer to my query (my last post above), could you direct me to it please? Thanks. Ben MacDui 09:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The variant "does not have Misplaced Pages-wide consensus" seems to me by far the best: it's factually true and avoids judging whether consensus exists in sub-communities or whether the controversy will continue (it may not!) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Many things don't have demonstrable Misplaced Pages-wide consensus, but they are still the established practice in their areas, and we should be telling people about them without fuss. Instead of trying to force badges of shame into what is already a long page of complex guidance, I suggest (again) that those who want to change the practice should make a clear proposal for doing so, and await consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How about "Misplaced Pages-level consensus" or "MoS-level consensus"? We need to establish that it does have Wikiproject-level consensus while acknowledging that this is technically not enough.Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The MOS is for style, not a place to kick a bunch of editors for being consistent with WP:COMMONNAME based on reliable sources. Until now, I have seen the generic claim that Style manuals say that bird names are not capitalized, although none of them actually discusses the common practice in the field to capitalize them. The sole exception is the CMoS that refers to authoritative guides. Maybe the lowercap proponents can find a reliable source stating that the common practice to capitalize within birds is incorrect for birds beyond sources that actually do not discuss it. -- Kim van der Linde 21:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. Your continued insistence that "reliable source" = "specialist source" is inexplicable.
  2. You've misconstrued others' claims about style guides, thereby setting up a straw man that you've continued attacking even after our positions were clarified.
  3. Other members of WikiProject Birds have acknowledged that they advocate an exception to Misplaced Pages's usual style conventions. You're the only one arguing not only that it isn't an exception, but that those who disagree are blatantly and outrageously disregarding policy. —David Levy 21:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I found the comment that capitalized English-language bird names contribute to "public perception of WP as low-credibility" as (I'm sure unintentionally) quite funny, as the opposite is true for most birdwatchers, birders, and ornithologists. And those are the people who most access those articles! I agree that "does not have Misplaced Pages-wide consensus" is not inflammatory. Natureguy1980 (talk)

I would not understand why the opposite should be true for B&Os, unless B&Os also view the New York Times and other general publication as having low credibility. It seems like B&Os would also expect a general online encyclopedia to follow general style guidelines as a matter of course. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

When they don't capitalize bird names, yes, it does lower their credibility in the eyes of many B&Os; it doesn't help that these instances of lowercase bird names are usually accompanied by blatant factual inaccuracies. I've twice been quoted in the NYT, and both times in pieces that were not properly researched. The lack of capitalization only makes it look more amateurish to those familiar with the typographic customs of the discipline. In other words, using capitalized bird names lends immediate credibility in the eyes on B&Os. And I think that is why there is so much resistance to eliminating them. Personally speaking, I can't think of any authoritative/respected source in the United States, lay or professional, which does not capitalize. Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is where "write for your audience" comes in. We're not writing only for ornithologists and non-professional bird enthusiasts. We're writing for those people and the biologists who needs background and the fourth grader doing a report and the Colombian who's reading Misplaced Pages to learn English and the schoolteacher doublechecking facts; we're writing for anyone who can read in English. Working with most of the people most of the time, in this case, means using lowercase. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, because I'm incredulous: You are claiming that B&Os have a low view of the credibility of every source outside B&O journals. The New York Times coverage of the stock market or obituaries or diplomatic events is in question because the NYT doesn't follow a particular group's branch from usual English style? In any event, I'd rather have credibility with everyone except B&Os over B&Os, if they are directly at odds. The greater good and all. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that B&Os have have a low view of the credibility of any article that writes about birds without capitalizing the English-language names. You needn't look into it any further than that. We simply disagree on a fundamental level, Darkfrog. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people accessing the bird-related pages are, believe it or not, people who are interested in birds, and who are familiar with the capitalization convention. I also happen to believe that the people who best know a subject should be listened to in matters such as this. If the convention in physics were to never use capital letters, then I'd have no problem with the physics pages doing so. It would look very odd to me, but I'm not a physicist. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• TLDR. Could someone summarise this enormous set of threads? My inclination is to downcase unless there's ambiguity. Please remember that some professionals and organisations love to upcase (dog breeders, give me a break) to bignote what they do. We should not necessarily go along with this. Tony (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:MOSTM apply to ALL phrases that happen to be trademarks, in ALL uses?

That question is put here. I draw it to editors' attention as relevant in a few recent requested moves (RMs), and potentially in many more to come.

Noetica 06:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A completely different way of handling some-time capitalization (not a competing proposal)

Since it hasn't been mentioned at all, I thought I'd bring up the idea that where something (needn't be an organism) is not generally regarded as a proper noun, but some field/authority chooses to capitalize it in their own publications, e.g. a dance move or a comic book grading term or a trick shot in pool or a skateboarding move or an type of cat, there's a really, really obvious and actually encyclopedically useful way to handle this: Use a parenthetical or appended note in the lead that specifies who capitalizes it. (Note: if its something that is a redlink and likely to remain one, that's a good sign that it shouldn't be mentioned and nor should the capitalized version). Example:

The frumious bandersnatch (Banderesnatium frumiosus) is a bandersnatch of the Jabberwocky family, native to the forests of Serendip. In cryptozoological literature, especially of the International Society of Cryptozoology, it is often capitalized Frumious Bandersnatch.

I've used this technique may times in and out of animal articles. A real animal one is domestic short-haired cat, interesting because the capitalized form, the pseudo-breed "Domestic Shorthair", is spelled differently (no hyphen, no -ed) as well as capitalized.

I'm not suggesting someone go change all the bird articles to read this way using a link to the IOC as the capitalization authority, so no one need launch a bird-related debate. However, this is a good solution for cases where general style eschews capitalization, e.g. of plant common names, but an international organization devoted to the study of that family (order, whatever) prefers capitalization, especially if it recommends a specific common name among multiple recorded vernacular names. Knowing that the name is sometimes capitalized, by whom and in what contexts is actually non-trivial information, as at the cat article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 04:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem in writing articles this way. I especially like the using encyclopedic style while acknowledging other styles. However, I don't believe that it solves our current problem of how to phrase the synch-template guideline on capitalization and WP:Birds. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct; it wasn't intended to, it's just a side comment on something useful in some cases. I didn't want to either cloud the bigger debate with it or have it be lost in the debate, ergo the separate thread and "(not a competing proposal)". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 06:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As you might be aware from reading the plant discussions that you've linked, the broader controversy there was over which common names to use. Some editors (the most insistent of whom is no longer editing) believed that only the "official" common names of the native land (usually Britain, sometimes Australia) should be used; others (including me) held that all common names documented in reliable sources should be included. IMO, capitalization was a secondary issue. At one point, I either proposed or intended to propose a tabular format that would include the common name, the geographic or linguistic source, and the reference; the assumption was that the name would preserve the orthography of the source. The treatment of the domestic short-haired cat fits this model well, by not calling out the orthography as a peculiarity.

If it were up to me, the article would be Mimus polyglottos and the lede would mention Northern Mockingbird as its AOU name. It would also mention other attested vernacular names, although the prevalence of standardized bird names has had the effect of suppressing many of the truly common names of many birds. Alas, the bird folks would probably reject that as well, and there's an undercurrent among many non-biology editors to avoid binomials as article names altogether, if any English name can be scraped up.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Aye. I'm well aware of all that, including that "native official name" business, and the years of controversy about why it might be better to have plant articles at their scientific names. I wasn't meaning to imply that capitalization was the main issue for plant projects/editors/articles, just that to the extent it comes up, there are ways to address it without having confusing, wishy-washy verbiage in the MOS. Because redirects work, I've never personally been all that concerned about what name the article "lives" at, and more concerned about the prose. Your table idea strikes me as interesting. I think the undercurrent you refer to is simply WP:COMMONNAME being applied, though perhaps you are indicating that it's being violated in spirit by some trying to adhere to it in letter, just to avoid scientific names. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 06:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a rather more useful discussion than some of the more fraught ones above. I think that there would be less resistance to adopting a lower-case style for all common names as a default for all articles if it was accepted that the style of the sources should always be explicitly acknowledged (e.g. in the kind of approach that Curtis Clark suggested, where the table would "preserve the orthography of the source"). Whether you need to say each time that the source capitalizes isn't clear to me; I incline to the view that you don't. This also avoids the POV issue which arises for me when all the reliable sources I've used for a plant article capitalize the common name but I would be expected to ignore this on top of using a style I personally find unpleasing. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Two vs. one space characters after terminal punctuation

I put also two spaces after ends of sentences in Wiki source code, expand one to two, and collapse three or more to two, because two spaces is what style guides that actually comment on the matter recommend for fixed-width, word processed (or, in ye olden tymes, typewritten) manuscripts, wikicode is our electronic, fixed-width (unless you use WP settings to use a proportional font) equivalent of a manuscript, and MediaWiki software automatically collapses the two spaces to one when the rendered content is presented to the reader. It simply makes the source code easier to read, an increasingly needed feature as template and citation code becomes more common and more complex in the wikicode of article prose. It helps editors, and has no effect on readers. While I don't think the MOS should "force" people to put two periods after a sentence in wikimarkup, it should deprecate the "correction" of articles to only use one space after sentences. I raise this here because I was recently contacted by an editor who does exactly this, on a large scale, have encountered other editors who also do this, and I find it notably problematic. NB: More than two spaces should of course be collapsed t two. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 01:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. I use two between sentences, and people who go around undoing that just make the source less clear. They should stop. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I place two spaces after each sentence, and I agree that doing so makes the source code easier to read.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So you were all brought up in the typewriter era. I totally disagree: no problem here if someone goes around compressing two (or much worse, THREE, into one space). It's very old-fashioned to thumb twice after a period. Try to lose this nervous twitch and move into the 21st century, you guys. Tony (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Lester, Mark; Larry Beason (2005). The McGraw-Hill Handbook of English Grammar and Usage. McGraw-Hill. p. 4. ISBN 0-07-144133-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)